Frankly Speaking

Here are a few gun control stories to spark some debate.

Sen. Jon Corzine (D., N.J.) and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D., R.I.) sponsor the " Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act". It gives the Attorney General the power to regulate, restrict the sale of, and confiscate most any firearm in America. Commentary here.

A lesson in how to disarm America. It includes such words of wisdom as..

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

If that weren't enough, he goes on with this bit of wisdom.

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

This sounds suspiciously like something that a dictator, terrified of an armed populace would try. Oh, that's right, Hitler disarmed the Jews and other dissident groups long before he started rounding them up. Because we can't have dissenters fighting back, now can we?

The demonization of the 9mm semi-automatic, and the subsequent fisking. I didn't find a single thing in the fisking with which I could argue. It's great stuff.

Mark Steyn hits a home run in his description of "Gun Free Zones".

I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in part because it has a high rate of gun ownership. We do have the occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told 'em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased 'em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where's the nearest place around here where you're most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish. Like the new Yale props department policy, it signals to everyone that you're not in the real world.

More on the two teens who committed this crime here. You will notice that they make reference to the teens attempting to rob four other homes in the 6 months previous to the murders, but make no mention of the fact that they were run off at gun point from most, if not all, of them.

And finally, Pike County Illinois has passed a resolution telling the state legislature it can kiss its collective ass when it comes to restricting firearms in Pike County.

"Now, Therefore, It Be And Is Hereby Resolved, that the people of Pike County, Illinois, do oppose the enactment of any legislation that would infringe upon the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, and deem such laws to be Unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority."

Put that in your smoke and pipe it, Daley.

Labels: gun control

I hate to generalize, but men are just idiots when it comes to some things. I went to the bathroom before heading to lunch, and this is what I saw.

Now just how hard is it to unwrap the new roll and actually put it on the holder? This is why women complain about us.

To show just how stupid I thought that was, I left it exactly as I found it.

Please excuse the poor quality of the picture. I had to take it with my phone, as I thought carrying my Nikon D70s into the restroom would cause more questions than I wanted to deal with.

Labels: pointless silliness

You get to share in my Monday amusement. I thought they were pretty funny, so I decided to share.
How to tell if a Catholic is driving too fast.


Jewish Olympic Swimmer

Labels: pointless silliness

A few quotes from the father of "the Modern Technique" of handgun shooting, Jeff Cooper.

"Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons."

"The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized."

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

—Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

I think these should be framed and hung in every school in America, as well as in every state house, just to remind them who they work for.

Labels: gun control

And I'm not a big fan of Celine, but this was very, very cool.

Labels: pointless silliness

“Their TIGER STYLE SCIENCE is strong. But our DRAGON STYLE SCIENCE will defeat it!”

If you don't agree that Protein Wisdom is one of the best blogs out there, I will fight you.

Labels: pointless silliness

If this didn't sound so much like my life.

The Queen: Do you want to watch America's Next Top Model with me.

Me: Ah, no. I did that once in my lifetime, so I'm good, thanks.

The Queen: Oh, come on.

Me: Sorry, but I just don't understand the appeal of a bunch of stupid people prancing around like idiots and blurting out whatever damned-fool thing flitters through their heads.

The Queen: ... says the guy who reads political blogs.

Blatantly stolen from Matthew Baldwin at Defective Yeti

Labels: pointless silliness

Last month a few people ridiculed me for this post selling calorie offsets.

Well, seeing how well the carbon offset program is doing, I'm going to expand my offerings.

I am now selling smoking offsets. If you've always worried about the damage your three pack a day habit is doing, worry no longer. For a small hefty donation to me, I will ensure that three people are warned of the dangers of smoking, thus offsetting the smoking from one person, you. See how well that works?

So now you can sit on your butt, watch the boob tube, and by making your monthly calorie and smoking offset donations, you can feel confidant you are doing your part to improve the planet.

Just one more service I am happy to offer.

Labels: biting sarcasm

Ed raised a good question in my post below.

Do you think that ONLY the democrats are the ones who have tired of this war? I mean across the board... not just senators and representatives, but general public... are the only ones who oppose the war either democrat moonbats or traitorous yellowtails?

Short answer, no, I don't think it's only Democrats, or the barking moonbats or traitors who have tired of the war. Hell, I'm tired of the war and would love to see it over with.

Now for the long answer, and we hit on part of that in this post below.

Let's start with international opinion. Let me be as crystal clear about this as I possibly can, I don't give a rat's ass what the French or any other nation has to say about this war. This is said from the perspective of someone who loves Europe. I lived in Germany for more than 7 years total, and loved every single minute of it. Europe has become a socialist nightmare, with high unemployment, pissed off citizens, and a slowly eroding culture. Europeans, no matter how strong their ties are to us, are not us. They don't determine our policy, or decide when it is appropriate for us to defend ourselves. In short, they can collectively kiss my hairy white ass. Most European countries are in such a rush to appease the Islamofascists that they are giving away their own countries and identities. IMHO, the multicultural crowd in Europe is going to achieve what the Ottoman Empire failed to do; create an Islamic Europe.

Now, back to us. I think most people are tired of the war. But I think most Americans are tired of the war precisely because they think we have been, and are, losing. From the moment the first bomb dropped on Iraq, they have been inundated with "news" claiming that the war was started based on a lie, we didn't fight it properly, we're only inciting the terrorists to attack us, and Iraq is a distraction from the "real" war on terror.

I disagree with almost every single one of those points.

However, I think Ed raised a good point in his comment on this post.

Truth be told, the war could have been won without ever losing an american [sic] life to enemy fire... of course, the US government and the American people don't have the stomach for such a war... If the US military simply hammered Iraq for a year with carpet bombings rather than a ground war, I can guarantee you that the militias would have lost their will to fight relatively fast... I am talking all out levelling [sic] of every structure in every city in Iraq... The will would have been lost probably around the time when the entire population would had to find caves for shelter. Of course, lots of people would have considered such a tactic low and complained that it wasn't fair... but we would be in a different place today. As some bright wit somewhere said, "Kill them all, let god sort them out!"

That's how you win a war now and prevent a war in the future...

The rules of engagement we utilize when we fight are designed with our failure in mind. However, I think the media, and the collective memory of Vietnam plays a large part of that. We are a media centric culture, and video of thousands of dead civilians will turn this country anti-war faster than you can say "don't shoot, I'm French".

In WWII we killed thousands upon thousands of civilians. We bombed the shit out of Germany, leveling everything even remotely strategic. If there were civilians there, we felt bad about it, but we did it anyway. Same with Japan. You think we made sure all the civilians were out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki before we leveled them? But by taking that step, we shortened the war by months, if not years, and saved thousands of lives on both sides.

My great uncle, who fought in Italy and Germany during WWII, tells a story of raiding a warehouse after a fight. They routed the Germans, and upon entering the warehouse, they found row after row of pallets of food. Wheels of Swiss cheese large enough that it took 4 men to carry one. There was meat and cheese and wine, and there was enough of it that the whole battalion had a good meal or two.

Now imagine if something like that happened today. CNN would have cameras on the scene, showing the greedy Americans looting the poor Iraqis. There would be condemnation from the U.N., and every major newspaper in America would have headlines above the fold about how we are stealing food out of the very mouths of the people we are supposed to be helping.

Ever day I have this discussion with people at work. In my office there are Republicans, Democrats, and your average idiots. We sit in the break room at lunch and watch the news. Every time there is a broadcast giving the number of Americans killed that day, and the total killed to date, someone invariably says, "They need to just bring the home. This is just awful." The reason is, of course, that they don't want to see anyone else die. I then begin to question them about what they think will happen to the region after we pull out. How many thousands of Iraqis will be killed for helping the coalition? What do they think will happen to oil prices if Iran rolls into Iraq and takes over? How many terrorist attacks will take place closer to home if they aren't busy fighting us in Iraq?

Most people, after being forced to think their actions through to their logical conclusion, realize that we need to stay in Iraq and fight until we have won. The biggest problems most Americans have is that they are, for lack of a better word, ignorant. Most people have no clue when it comes to American history, what it took to win most wars, or what actually happened in Vietnam. The only "war" they remember is the Gulf war of '91, and that was not indicative of how wars are fought or won. There is a large segment of our population, like it or not, whose only source of information on history and war is the 30 minute nightly news cast. They won't research anything on their own, and will swallow anything dished out to them as long as it has some pretty graphics behind it. There is also a segment of the population, albeit a much smaller segment, that wants to know the truth. I think that accounts for the rise in popularity of talk radio and blogs. They realize they aren't getting the full story from the media, so they seek out alternate sources of information. The media can belittle these alternate sources all they want, but they have made a large impact on politics today, and they are here to stay.

I firmly believe we can win this war. The surge is only 60% complete, but yet there is a dramatic shift in what is being accomplished. If you skip the anti-war propoganda of the media and go straight to the source, like the blogs from soldiers who are actually there, or Iraqi bloggers, you get a different picture of what is going on in Iraq. The fight is far from over, but we are definitely making progress.

I think that is where the media and the politicians in this country have done us all a disservice. The Democratic leadership has failed us because of its unending devotion to surrender, and the Republicans have failed us because they are spineless pussies who have steadfastly refused to say "political future be damned, I'm doing the right thing". From the beginning, Bush failed to take his case to the American people and show them what we are fighting for and why we are fighting, and it has come back to haunt him. The media, for the most part, is populated by people who believe that there is never a cause worth fighting for, which means every war is immoral. If war is immoral, then the people who support it are wrong, the war is bad, and we need to end it all as soon as possible. How can you possibly get the truth about the war from people who's very ideological bent forces them to believe that war is inherently evil?

The fact of the matter is that our government isn't governed by the will of the people. We are a republic, governed by the rule of law. The President, along with every member of the House the Senate, takes an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. Whether it is popular or not, the government has an obligation to fight on our behalf to protect and preserve the people of America. For all his faults, and there are many, Bush understands this concept. He believes this is a war that has to be fought and won, and he is committed to it, no matter what the damage may be to his legacy.

This war may not be winnable under this administration, but I guarantee that if we don't allow the surge to work, this war will never be won. The next administration, whatever their party, will be forced to withdraw the troops, and then we all better stock up on guns and ammo, because the fight will be coming a lot closer.

Labels: Iraq, war

Rushing to prove how much they support the troops, congress is set to send yet another surrender bill to President Bush.

"Mr. President, we sincerely hope that you change your mind, that you understand that this is a responsible bill to change policy and move in a new direction — a successful direction for our efforts internationally to defeat terrorism. Sign this bill," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer alongside Pelosi and other top Democrats.

How, exactly is this bill that removes our troops from the battle supposed to help us defeat terrorism? If we withdraw now, we embolden the terrorists. What this does is teach them that the way to defeat us is to make the war as bloody as possible and we will lose our will to fight.

The Pentagon would be required to adhere to certain standards for the training and equipping of units sent to Iraq, and for their rest at home between deployments. Bush could waive the guidelines if necessary. Democrats assume he would, but they want him on record as doing so.

If the Democrats are so worried about equipping our troops, why don't they get their collective thumbs out of the arses and pass the spending bill needed to keep funding the war? You want troops to have training and weapons, then pour some money into it. If you want to see more troops get killed, giving you an even better argument for withdrawal (in your mind, anyway), then by all means, keep dicking around with the funds that they need.

But here's the money quote.

Under the nonbinding timeline, all combat troops would be withdrawn by April 1, 2008.

After that date, U.S. forces would have a redefined and restricted mission of protecting U.S. personnel and facilities, engaging in counterterrorism activities against Al Qaeda and other similar organizations, and training and equipping Iraqi forces.

Emphasis mine. What, exactly, do these idiots think we're doing now, besides protecting U.S. personnel and facilities, engaging in counterterrorism activities, and training and equipping Iraqi forces?

Their main complaint is that Bush is stuck on "stay the course", but the truth is he has dramatically altered the course of action. If anyone is stuck on "staying the course", it is the Democrats, who have been running the only play in their book for 40 years, and it reads "War never solved anything, withdraw immediately."

Labels: governmental idiocy, Iraq, war

See the woman carrying the "Bush is the real fascist" sign in this picture? Good. One question, if she were to lose the hijab, maybe throw on a tank top and some shorts, and then try to march with those other peace lovers pictured here, I wonder how long she would stay in one piece? I mean, they wouldn't want to imprison or beat her or anything, would they?

Just asking, is all.

h/t The Jawa Report

Labels: biting sarcasm

Those on the left love to talk about the free exchange of ideas. Hillary complains about the politics of personal destruction, and why can't we just debate the issues. Universities brag about the fact that they are shaping young minds to question the world, to see truth. Newspapers label themselves as one of the last bastions of free speech.

Yet are they really?

It seems most every day there are stories of free speech being stifled, and of lop-sided opinions being masqueraded as "news".

Chris Simcock, of the minuteman project, attempts to speack at MSU, and has to wait 20 minutes for the police to clear the room. Being such strong advocates of the 1st amendment, they wouldn't even allow him to speak.

In 2002 former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to cancel a speech at Concordia University because of Islamic protesters. So great is their hatred of him, that he wasn't allowed to speak to a Jewish organization on campus without enraging the protesters.

The same holds true when our Vice President attempts to speak. Or when a scientist offers an opinion that global warming is something other than settled science. Or when the President's surge appears to be working, and Democrats rush to find microphones to pronounce our surrender.

Leftists will not tolerate an opinion other than their own to be heard in this country. We have become a country of hate crimes and thought control. Don't you dare say something that may offend someone. We just won't stand for it.

In Tennessee they want to prosecute someone for putting bacon in a Koran as a hate crime. The same with middle schoolers who left a bag containing a ham steak on a table full of Somali Muslims.

Don Imus was fired for using the phrase "nappy headed ho's" about the Rutgers Women's basketball team. Jimmy the Greek was fired in 1988 for saying that blacks were bred to be better athletes.

What do all these have in common? We're attempting to legislate thoughts. If I shoot you because I don't like you, I'm prosecuted for murder. If I shoot you because you happen to belong to some protected group, it becomes a hate crime, and I'm really prosecuted.

Newscasters, being slaves to their own white guilt, completely ignored the murders of Channon Christian and Cristopher Newsome in January of this year, largely because they were a white couple who were murdered by 5 black men and women. Since this doesn't fit neatly into the image the news wants to portray, they quietly bury it while still running stories of the rape that never happened at Duke.

Newspapers in America and Europe refuse to run the Danish Mohammad cartoons, for fear of offending Muslims. However, they had no problem at all showing Piss Christ, the Madonna covered in dung and the Chocolate Jesus.

When I wear my GOP baseball cap, I see the way some people stare at me. I know that in their minds, they are wondering if I'm secretly a nazi, or if I want to take away the medicine from their grandparents.

How did we get to this place as a country? How is it that it has become acceptable to attack some people (white men, Christians, anyone in the Republican party), but you can't even have a debate with or about certain people or groups without being accused of wanted to destroy that group? (Al Sharpton, immigration, Islam)

I happen to support the idea of securing our borders. It has nothing to do with hating Mexicans, or wanting to restrict immigration. It has everything to do with wanting to know who is coming in to our country, and keeping us safe. I think Al Sharpton should be sent to prison for the things he has done over the past 20 years, but it has nothing to do with the fact that he is black. It has everything to do with the fact that he is an opportunistic race baiter, who throws accusations at everyone else in the world, but won't even apologize for being wrong after he was convicted and forced to pay a hefty fine. And these are just a few examples.

You may disagree with me on every single point I have ever brought up on this site, but I'm not going to ban you from visiting, or erase your comments, because I believe in the free exchange of ideas. We can debate an issue until we are both tired of hearing the sound of our voice, or one of us persuades the other to their side. But if you disagree with me, I'm not going to try to make it illegal for you to think it.

If you'll pardon me borrowing the phrase, but I have a dream. A dream where ideas are debated on their merit, and decided on facts. I have a dream where knee-jerk, emotional responses to situations don't receive national attention just because they fit into that particular newscaster's politics. I have a dream where a man or woman is not judged by the (D) or (R) after their name, but by the content of their character. I have a dream that we will return to the rugged individualism of our forefathers, where someone can be bullied or called names and their response isn't to plan a mass murder, but to rise above it and go on to succeed in life. I have a dream where the Western way of life is held up as an example of all that is good in the human race. That people are encouraged to pursue their dreams, start businesses, and succeed without the fear of being called greedy, or being accused of destroying the planet because they wish to make life better for their fellow man. I have a dream where politicians actually want to serve the greater good, rather than their over-inflated egos.

I may not live long enough to see these dreams come to fruition, but I hope that my children, and my children's children will be able to walk down the street, hand-in-hand with someone of another ideology.

Labels: mediots, moonbats, race relations

Just kidding. This is not about redneck jokes, but about why Jeff Foxworthy enjoys doing the CMT Awards show.

I'm not a huge fan of country music. Scratch that, I'm not a huge fan of current country music, but I have to give a hearty "Amen" to Foxworthy of everything he said.

Labels: general rants

Wars have, historically, not always been won by the side that kills more of the opposing enemy. When you fight, you don't fight merely to kill as many of the enemy as possible, because there will always be someone else ready to step in to his shoes and pick up his fallen weapon. No, to win a war, you don't have to kill the most, you have to take away your enemy's will to fight.

When we started this campaign in Iraq, we had the right idea.. shock and awe. We came in to overwhelm the country with out military superiority, making them believe that there was no way they could stand up to us, thus taking away their will to fight.

But ever since the first American boot hit the ground in Iraq, Democrats and the media have been doing everything they can to erode the will to fight. But they've directed every bit of their effort towards the American public, rather than against our enemies.

Side note: There have been plenty of other problems with this war as well, such as the way troops were hamstrung by the Rules of Engagement, but that' not the main focus of this rant.

With every American death in Iraq, they drive home the notion that we cannot win this fight, and we should give up now and bring home our troops before they all die.

The troops, as can be witnessed on any number of milblogs, have the will to fight. They know the job which must be done, and are ready to perform that job, even if it means sacrificing their own lives in the process. The leaders of this country, however, wouldn't know self-sacrifice if it kicked them squarely in the ass.

“I believe... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.”
—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

How, exactly, does it help the American people for their leaders to announce that, despite the advances that are being made by the surge, this course of action is doomed and we are lost? Harry Reid is directly aiding and abetting the enemy here. First by refusing to give up on a timetable for retreat, and secondly by demoralizing the American public and our soldiers.

Let's compare this to, say, the NCAA tournament from just a month ago. Two teams are on the court, battling it out for the title of NCAA champion. When one side begins to pull ahead, what happens? The opposing team fights back that much stronger, trying to overcome the obvious deficit. When you look at the bleachers on the winning team's side, you see thousands of students, parents, fans, faculty, etc., all wearing their team colors, holding banners, chanting, yelling and doing everything they can to support their team. This helps to give them the motivation they need to hang on, pull farther ahead and ultimately defeat the opposing team.

If this war were a basketball game, it would be the 4^th quarter of the final game and America would be ahead. However, the insurgents would be fighting back, trying desperately to pull ahead before time runs out. What they aren't sure of, is exactly how much time is left, or exactly how far behind they are.

Meanwhile, there is a large delegation from the American team on the sidelines, arguing with the officials that the game should be shortened. They point out that, while America is ahead, the other team is fighting back so fiercely that surely there is no way we'll be able to hold on to this lead, so we might as well forfeit, pack up and go home now. No use in the team being exhausted for no reason.

When this tactic doesn't work, they then turn to the stands, and start cheering. But instead of attempting to rally their crowd behind the team, they start chanting, "We can't win! We can't win!"

Now that you've pictured that scenario, how well do you think the team is going to play? They will continue to play, of course, but their attention will be on the sidelines, wondering what they've done that could make their school and fans abandon them like this. In their very moment of triumph, they are being told that their entire season was for nothing. The months and years of preparation, and all the games they won along the way were for nothing. Now that they are in the final game, ready to take on anything the opposing team can throw at them, it is not the enemy that defeats them, but the very people who should be supporting them.

If supporting your team is so natural and so easy to understand in a basketball game, just what the hell is so hard for Harry Reid to understand about his constant cheering for our defeat in Iraq?

Labels: Iraq, mediots, war

Typically I try to stay away from celebrity gossip and the shows that specialize in them. But this story about Alec Baldwin is just too much to ignore.

How any father can talk to his 11 year old daughter like this is beyond me.

After Ireland failed to answer her father's scheduled morning phone call from New York on April 11, Alec went berserk on her voice mail, saying "Once again, I have made an ass of myself trying to get to a phone," adding, "you have insulted me for the last time."

Switching his train of thought, Baldwin then exercised his incredible parenting skills and took a shot at his ex-wife, declaring, "I don't give a damn that you're 12-years-old or 11-years-old, or a child, or that your mother is a thoughtless pain in the ass who doesn't care about what you do." The irate Baldwin went on to say, "You've made me feel like s**t" and threatened to "straighten your ass out."

"This crap you pull on me with this goddamn phone situation that you would never dream of doing to your mother," screamed Baldwin, "and you do it to me constantly over and over again."

Click here to download the .mp3 of the entire voice mail.

Labels: mediots, pointless silliness

Pwning insurgents.
If at first you don't stop it, get a bigger hammer.

Labels: war pr0n

Instead of tacking on to the end of the previous gun/IQ post, I'm going to add more here.

Ed posted his thoughts on gun ownership and IQ here.

So, if the average IQ of those states is 92, then we can postulate that the average IQ of gun owners in those states is commensurate with those statistics. If those statistics are fairly accurate, you can then, with a reasonable level of accuracy, further postulate that the national average of gun owners across the US is around the same. Not science, but at least enough to begin a discussion on whether or not gun owners are the smartest tools in the shed. Clearly, my original statement, “Not stupid, but not exactly the top ten percent of the countries intelligencia,” isn’t as offensive as one may think.

I'm going to get really touchy here, and take this whole IQ thing a step further.

In my previous post, I pointed out statistics that say

Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged, college- educated people of rural small-town America. Whites were substantially more likely to own guns than blacks, and blacks more likely than Hispanics.

If we then compare average IQs of whites vs. blacks, you will see an average 15 point IQ gap. Given that gun owners in the southern states are predominately white, his postulate that the states average IQ is 92, therefore that must be equal to the IQ of gun owners is not quite accurate. If you wanted to be more accurate, you would have to take the races separately, comparing the segment of each population, what percentage are gun owners, and then average their IQs.

To take this out even further, lets look at stats for hispanics.

Here's the best estimate I've yet seen: A 2001 meta-analysis of 39 studies covering a total 5,696,519 individuals in America (aged 14 and above) came up with an overall difference of 0.72 standard deviations in g (the "general factor" in cognitive ability) between "Anglo" whites and Hispanics. The 95% confidence range of the studies ran from .60 to .88 standard deviations, so there's not a huge amount of disagreement among the studies.

One standard deviation equals 15 IQ points, so that's a gap of 10.8 IQ points, or an IQ of 89 on the Lynn-Vanhanen scale where white Americans equal 100. That would imply the average Hispanic would fall at the 24th percentile of the white IQ distribution. This inequality gets worse at higher IQs Assuming a normal distribution, 4.8% of whites would fall above 125 IQ versus only 0.9% of Hispanics, which explains why Hispanics are given ethnic preferences in prestige college admissions.

So again, you have the white population scoring higher, on average, than the Hispanic population.

Given all this data, then, the majority of gun owners would still be, on average, white, because they, on average, score higher on IQ tests.

Wait, did I just say that gun owners are apt to be more intelligent because they are, on average, white? Wow, that ought to set off a firestorm.

Now, please allow me to give my disclaimers here. I am pointing all of this out to prove a point. You can no more require intelligence tests for gun ownership than you can for voting. Similar tests have been used in the past to disenfranchise voters, and the same could be said about this. If blacks and Hispanics, on average, score lower on intelligence tests than whites, is this then a racist attempt to keep the black and Hipanic population unarmed, and more readily controlled by the white population?

What about Ed also comparing this to raising children. The Hispanic population in America is growing at a much faster rate than the white population, because of immigrations, and also that they are more likely to have multiple children. If intelligence tests are used to determine who should be allowed to have children, then we will, by default, be saying that we want less black and Hispanic children in this country. That sounds a little racist, too.

Requiring intelligence tests for any of the rights granted by our creator and guaranteed by our constitution is one seriously slippery slope. I might prefer that most minorities not vote, but it has nothing to do with the fact that they are minority and everything to do with the fact that they are much more likely to vote Democrat. That doesn't mean I'm going to attempt to disenfranchise them by requiring IQ tests. The same applies for gun ownership. High IQ or not, the general population is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, to protect ourselves from each other and also from the government, should the need arise.

If you think all of this through to it's logical conclusion, what you get is caste system of the intelligencia, who are allowed complete freedom, while those of lower IQs become relegated to the lower class, with less rights the farther down the scale you go.

Sounds suspiciously like what the founding fathers were trying to avoid when they started this whole America thing.

Labels: gun control, race relations

I'm not going to link to the killer's video, because I don't want to add to NBC's glorification of him. I will make this observation, though.

Was I the only one who, while listening to this kid, was waiting for him to say, "Tina, come get your food?"

It's only me, then?

Labels: pointless silliness

Commenting on my VA Tech Post below, Ed made some assertions about gun owners and low IQs, namely:

The problem in the US isn't the readily available weapons, but the ignorant people who use them to force their will on others. Criminals, militants, etc. If the government said, "You want to own a gun? You must first pass this IQ test!" I seriously doubt the problems that are normally attributed to a lack of gun control would ever take place.

Guns don't kill people... ignorant people kill people. If I had to guess, I would say the average IQ of a gun owner hovers in the low 80s. Not stupid, but not exactly the top ten percent of the countries intelligencia.

Personally, I found this offensive. I don't hear Ed advocating an IQ test for free speech. And there have been plenty of people killed by speech. Just look at the mess Sharpton made in New York in 1991, when he incited his mob protesters until they stabbed a rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, to death. I can't wait to hear the uproar when we start making public speakers take IQ tests before taking to the podium.

For the 2 or 3 of you who read this little blog that aren't Ed, allow me to explain that I happen to like Ed, and he keeps me on my toes when it comes to arguing why I believe something. So now he's got me scouring the internet, looking for anything I can find about gun ownership and IQ. I'll be updating this post as my research continues, but this is what I have found so far.

From this survey (.pdf file here) from the National Institute of Justice,

Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged, college- educated people of rural small-town America. Whites were substantially more likely to own guns than blacks, and blacks more likely than Hispanics.

Granted, college educated does not equal higher IQ, but chances are they (the gun owning, college graduates) are probably not the knuckle-dragging cretins that Ed is envisioning.

According to this advocate of gun restriction, there are

The National Rifle Association estimates there are upwards of 65-70 million privately-owned handguns out of more than 200 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S.

• That number rises by about 4.5 million each year.
• There are 65-80 million gun owners in America; 30-35 million own handguns.
• American households that have firearms: approximately 45%.
• With 301,631,058 people in this country and about 80 million gun owners, that’s 211,631,058 citizens who don’t own a firearm.
• Which is still 0.66 guns for every person.

No mention of the IQ of the gun owners, but I'm going to guess that with 45% of all households owning guns, there are more than a few below average IQs, as well as a few above average.

Research is continuing. Also, be sure to check out Ed's blog, as he promises to post his own research on the subject. I'm looking forward to it.

Labels: general rants, gun control

For all those ready to go off the deep end about America's gun culture, allow me to give you a brief lesson in history. This was America's worst school shooting, but not the worst massacre.

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, USA, on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in second to sixth grades attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history.

In this case, a disgruntled school board member, Andrew Kehoe, blamed the fact that he lost his farm on an increase in school taxes. To retaliate, over several months he packed dynamite and pyrotol into the school, hiding it throughout the basement. On the morning of May 18, he first killed his wife, then set his farm on fire. While the fire department was at his home, putting out the fires, he detonated the first set of explosives at the school, killing all the children in that wing of the building. He then drove up to the school building while rescue workers were gathering and detonated the explosives in his truck, which was packed full of shrapnel, killing himself and the school superintendent, and inuring several others.

If you will notice one thing about this story, not a single gun was used during this massacre. He killed his wife using blunt force trauma to the head with an unknown object, and bombs to kill everyone else.

The lesson to be learned here? When a person is bent on destruction, the weapon doesn't matter. Whether it be a gun, a bomb, a knife, of the nearest heavy object, (s)he will do what it takes to kill.

One more note. The mayor of Nagasaki was killed yesterday, shot twice in the back by a gangster who wasn't happy with him. Japan has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, including a near ban on handguns. Those gun laws didn't do Mayor Iccho Ito much good, did they?

Labels: general rants, gun control, media

What is up with this Maya Angelou wannabe at the convocation yesterday? Most of her poem was quite good, and exactly what the student body needed to hear. It is a tragedy that they did not deserve, but what the hell does that have to do with the baby elephant in Africa? Or the Mexican child? Or the Appalachian baby? And whatever else she was rambling on about?

When bad things happen, there is always someone ready to use it to advance some political agenda. And yes, politics is perfectly acceptable in discussing this, which is why I included my views on gun ownership in my post below. However, when you are at a convocation to honor the dead, you should not take that time to compare innocent students being gunned down in their classrooms to elephants being killed for their ivory. The two have no moral equivalence at. all.

She was not so much about cheering for the Hokies as she was about promoting herself. Waving her arms around, as if to say, "Look at me. Aren't I wonderful?" Get over yourself woman.

I'm sure we'll be seeing her on Oprah within a week.

Labels: general rants, moonbats

If you broke into Frank's home, what would be his likely response?
	Hide under the bed.
	Jump out the kitchen window and call 911 from the nieghbor's house.
	Stand frozen in the middle of the room, screaming like a little girl.
	Ventilate the intruder with one of several firearms from throughout the house.
pollcode.com free polls

Labels: pointless silliness

Video from a Q&A in Britain. The woman questioning Bolton points out that her family has lived in Iraq for 30 years, and she has lost more relatives in the last 4 years than 30 under Saddam. This is, of course, met with wild applause from those brave Brits, who so recently managed to muster enough courage to thank Iran for not executing the sailors they held hostage.

Questions that should have been asked of her.

1. Your family wouldn't happen to be Sunni, would it?
2. Can you please explain the footage of all the Kurds who were being gassed by someone. We're going to assume it was Saddam, since he was in charge at the time.
3. Can you tell me who killed the tens of thousands of people that have been found in mass graves since the coalition started looking 4 years ago? I know Saddam was a peace loving dictator who would never have ordered anything like that. How, exactly, did the U.S. sneak in there, kill all those people, and get out without being detected?

It must be nice to go through life being that stupid. It would make life so much easier.

Labels: bush haters, Iraq, war

I have some loose ties with Virginia Tech. I've been to the campus a few times, and have always thought it was one of the most beautiful campuses I've ever seen.

Yesterday's tragedy breaks my heart. I can't imagine the terror those students felt as the killer stalked the hallways, killing anyone he came across.

Some in the media are already using this as a vehicle to immediately try to call for more gun control. Speaking with people at work yesterday afternoon and this morning, most all of the women here have the exact same reaction. They want their children to be safe, so their knee-jerk reaction is to want to ban guns.

I understand that feeling. I have two children, and I want them to be as safe as possible. However, stricter gun control is an emotional response, and the wrong response. Restricting access to guns assumes that everyone is a law abiding person who will follow the rules to obtain a weapon. If that were the case, then more gun control wouldn't be necessary, because there wouldn't be any bad guys. However, the fact remains that there will always be bad guys. There will always be some kook who thinks the best way to solve whatever his problem is would be to get a couple of pistols and shoot a few people. And the fact that he will be the only one on campus with a gun makes that decision a lot easier for him.

According to The Roanoke Times, a bill which would have allowed persons who possess a concealed carry permit to carry their firearms on campus died in committee.

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

But the money quote comes at the end of the article.

In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.

That pretty much sums up my entire argument. Their "violence prevention policy" prevented students from arming themselves, and as a result 32 students have lost their lives.

Go here for more on this from a grad student at Tech who was at the school during the shooting the first day of classes in the fall.

Update: The more I read about this, the more pissed off I get. Now the Europeans are taking it upon themselves to condemn the U.S. "gun culture".

British Home Office Minister, Tony McNulty, earned a masters degree in political science at Virginia Tech in 1982.

“I think if this does prompt a serious and reflective debate on gun issues and gun law in the states then some good may come from this woeful tragedy,” McNulty said.

They go on to lecture us about the fact that handguns are completely outlawed in Britain, and Britain has had only 46 homicides involving guns, compared to nearly 600 in New York.

My question for these idiots is how many people were killed otherwise? How many died in bombings compared to bombings in New York in that same time period? Ever hear of the IRA? How many have they killed, even though guns are all but outlawed in Britain? How many people have been killed in Europe, even though they have strict gun control laws?

When I lived in Germany the Red Army killed the head of the Bundesbank by packing a bicycle frame with plastic explosives and detonating it when his limo drove by. But I guess that doesn't count, because no guns were used.

Let me point this out again, you are not allowed to carry weapons on Virginia Tech's campus. Students who possess a concealed carry permit, who may have been able to defend themselves and stop this before it turned into such a disaster, were left cowering in classrooms, waiting to be executed because of gun control.

There are three reasons to own guns:

1. To protect yourself and your family


2. To hunt dangerous and delicious animals


3. And to protect yourself against a tyrannical government

This was a lone gunman with two pistols. One student with a concealed weapon could have brought this entire affair to a close.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Labels: education, governmental idiocy, gun control

A little bit of fun for the weekend. I especially love that the lead singer is 90 years old.

Labels: pointless silliness

I just sent a letter to Al Sharpton about the latest rape at Duke. Here is exactly what I sent, names changed to protect the innocent.

From: "Frank"
To: [crisis@nationalactionnetwork.com],[show@sharptontalk.net]
Subject: Another Duke Rape
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:53:07 -0400

Reverend Shaprton,

It has come to my attention that there is yet another rape case at Duke University, but I can't find any national media covering this event. I hoped that you would use your considerable power to help the victim of this terrible crime. After all, you did just use all the power at your disposal to help dispose of that racist Don Imus on behalf of the Rutgers ladies basketball team. I hope you could use that same sense of outrage to help this victim.

On February 13th the independent newspaper of Duke University, The Chronicle, reported that a young lady reported being raped at an off campus party hosted by members of the Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. To quote from the article, available at http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/02/13/News/OffEast.Rape.Investigation.Continues-2716034.shtml?sourcedomain=3Dwww.dukechronicle.com&MIIHost=3Dmedia.collegepublisher.com ,

"According to police reports released Monday, the 18-year-old woman reported forcible rape that took place at 3 a.m. at 405 Gattis St., where a party was hosted by some members of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc."

According to the article, marijuana, cocaine, and Oxycontin were found at the scene. There are also unconfirmed reports that a gun was found as well.

When the alleged rape took place with allegations being leveled at the lacrosse team, the media, Jesse Jackson, and yourself could not get there fast enough to crucify the, as we now know, innocent players. Members of the faculty helped to create wanted posters for members of the team, their season was cancelled, and their lives were all but ruined. Why is it that this case, then, has garnered so little attention? In fact, according to the article, students who are being relocated are receiving assistance from the University. Where was the assistance from the University when the lacrosse team was being vilified?

The only difference in these two stories, as far as I can see, is that in the case of the lacrosse team it was a black female alleging rape by white men, while this case is a white female, alleging rape by a black man.

I would like to know when you plan to again visit the Duke campus to investigate these allegations? When will you be organizing your next march on behalf of this victim? When will you be appearing on national talk shows to demand justice for this girl? Can we expect Jesse to offer to pay her college tuition if these allegations turn out to be true?

Eagerly awaiting your response,

Frank

Labels: biting sarcasm, race relations

If you don't read anything else today, read this column by Jason Whitlock in the Kansas City Star

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.

Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.

But an hour long press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.

Seriously. Forgo whatever else you had planned for the next half hour and read the entire thing. Then remind yourself that the columnist is black.

I'll have more on my take on race in this country later tonight or possibly tomorrow. In the mean time, read. the. column.

Labels: media, race relations, required reading

Snoop Dogg has decided to explain the double standard applied to rappers versus the rest of the world.

It's a completely different scenario," said Snoop, barking over the phone from a hotel room in L.A. "[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh--, that's trying to get a n---a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC [which announced Wednesday it would drop its simulcast of Imus' radio show] going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha----as say we in the same league as him."

So there you have it. As long as you are talking about your "experience", you're free to express it all you want. Also, if you're a woman, and you're not in college, or playing sports at that level, you deserve all the mistreatment you get.

But wait, it gets better.

"Kick him off the air forever," he said. "Ban him like they did [Adam] 'Pacman' Jones. They kicked him out the [National Football] League for the whole season [for numerous violations of the NFL's personal-conduct policy, including multiple arrests], but this punk gets to get on the air and call black women 'nappy-headed ho's.' "

So let's think about this for a moment. That rich, white guy, sitting in his studio, said "nappy headed hos". Meanwhile, Pacman Jones has been interviewed by the police 10 times. (click here for a detailed list of arrests) The most recent

took place during the NBA All-Star weekend in Las Vegas. Police there recommended felony and misdemeanor charges against Jones after a fight and shooting at a strip club that paralyzed one man. Police are still investigating.

So Imus made a comment, Pacman was involved in a shooting which left a man paralyzed. I see exactly how those are morally equivalent.

Snoop, I enjoyed your music for a while, but you. are. an. idiot. It is because young, black men in this country try to emulate douchebags like you that they have no idea how to treat women. You want to impress me? Try doing something to better the community that spawned you, and you don't do that by using "medicinal" marijuana, and attempting to stay a part of the gang culture.

In short, it's called growing up. You should look into it.

Labels: biting sarcasm, mediots

The more I hear him, the more I like him. And with today's announcement about his lymphoma, he is clearly paving the way to jump in.

Labels: presidential politics

Leno points out some subtle clues in Law & Order.

Labels: presidential politics

The Rutgers women's team held an hour long press conference to discuss the Imus flap. If I were a parent of one of these players, I would have been pretty ticked off as well. But now I have a couple of questions.

I wonder what kind of music the players listen to?
If they listen to rap / hip hop, I wonder how many times they have heard themselves referred to as "bitches" and "ho's" or heard how well they should be treated? Are they going to hold a press conference to discuss the negative affects of the words being used by Young Jeezy, Ludacris, R-Kelly, and the like?

Mike Nifong will drop all charges against the Duke lacrosse team.
Duke University Lacrosse players were paraded before the entire world as rapists, with no proof to support that claim, and their entire season was canceled as a result. Are they now going to be given an hour of air time to express their feelings about Nifong? How about suing Nifong to recoup court costs to defend themselves from Nifong's attacks?

As I have said before, I think Imus is a has-been, and should be punished for what he said. However, it's interesting how the coverage of the two events differs so greatly. On the one hand, we have a poor, black stripper accusing the "rich" white guys on the Lacrosse team of rape. She is black, therefore she must believed and the white players must be punished. Imus is an old, white guy attacking college age, black women. He will, therefore, be picketed by the Rainbow Coalition, he must prostrate himself at the altar of Sharpton, and he will lose sponsors (subscription required).

Ain't equality grand?

Michelle Malkin has more here, including the lyrics and videos for the top 5 on the Billboard Hot Rap Tracks chart.

Labels: general rants, mediots

The New Hampshire House voted to reject the Federal Real ID act yesterday.

"It is probably the worst piece of blackmail to come out of the federal government. This is pure, unadulterated blackmail," said. Rep. Sherman Packard, a Republican from Londonderry.

The states have been given until December 31, 2009 to comply with the Real ID Act, which requires them to establish uniform national licensing standards and link their databases. Individuals whose licenses do not conform to the
standard will be barred from entering federal buildings and boarding airplanes.

As someone who has worked in information security for several years, allow me to point to the linked database of driver info and scream at the top of my lungs, "that is a bad idea".

Given the governments propensity for losing laptops full of unencrypted information, and exposing millions of veterans personal information, I am opposed to anything that creates a giant target for would be identity thieves.

Rep. Neal Kurk, a Republican from Weare and the prime sponsor of New Hampshire's bill, says 26 states have either legislation or resolutions in the works opposing Real ID. He said 11 have legislation facilitating compliance - some of which also have measures opposing the act.

The more states that oppose this, the better. If the states actually stand up to the federal government every now and again, maybe the feds will learn that they are not G-d after all. Or at least realize that they have grown far beyond what the founders envisioned.

Labels: governmental idiocy

Okay, agree with him or not, this guy is good. M&Ms as a metaphor for the MSM is a stroke of genius.

I look for him to be on Comedy Central before long.

Labels: biting sarcasm

The winner in the Anna Nicole Smith baby lottery is....


Larry Birkhead.

Congratulations, Larry. You've won Dannielynn and all the potential income that she may provide, depending on the outcome of the lawsuit between her deceased ex-stripper mother and the dead gazillionaire's estate.

Meanwhile, somewhere in Europe there is a boarding school with her room already reserved.

Labels: biting sarcasm

At last, the Democratic candidates have found something they are willing to fight against. First Edwards pulled out of the September 23^rd debate on Fox. Now Clinton and Obama have also pulled out, effectively killing the debate.

Well, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have decided not to participate in the Democratic debate that the Congressional Black Caucus institute and Fox News channel had planned for September in Detroit.

Their decision follows that of John Edwards from last week. Mr. Edwards was the first to decline both this one and one that was canceled by Nevada Democrats after liberal activists and several of the most influential lib-blogs had mounted pressure against Fox for its conservative-leaning programming.

So basically, Democratic candidates are scared to appear on Fox, because who knows what would happen to them. I mean, Fox might paint red devil horns on each of the Democratic candidates heads. Or run subliminal messages in the crawl during the debate.

If Republicans had done this, there would have never been a debate in all of history. Can you imagine if Republicans refused to appear on PBS or CBS because of their left leaning ways?

In a Presidential debate, the stars of the show are.. wait for it.. wait for it.. the candidates. The moderators ask a question, and then shut the hell up. The only way the candidates would look bad on Fox would be if they actually stood up and articulated what they actually believe about any specific topic. But we're not in danger of that happening, that's for sure.

It's funny, Democrats will embrace every third world dictator or mass murderer they can get their hands on,



but G-d forbid you appear on a news station which may show anything more than just the Democrat party line. This is some of the most childish behavior I have ever seen.

If I ran Fox, I would have the debates anyway. And when it started, I would announce that the candidates were too afraid of direct questions to show up. I would then run every piece of film I could get my hand on showing each of them bowing and scraping to every thug the world has to offer. Maybe we could hire some of the actors from Jim Henson's Muppet Shop to create a character for each candidate who didn't show up, so they would be there to answer questions.

In the end, we see what these candidates are really made of. They won't support a fight against people who want to kill us, but they are more than ready to fight the evil powers at Fox News.

Because you have to draw the line somewhere.

Labels: biting sarcasm, presidential politics

A few constituents of Ron Hodes (D-NH) sit down with him to discuss the declaration of defeat war spending bill. I wouldn't want to be in this man's shoes come election day.

Hat tip QandO.

Labels: military

A Pakistani cleric wants Minister of Tourism Nilofar Bakhtiar fired for the sin of hugging a man.

Pakistani newspapers carried a photograph last week showing Minister of Tourism Nilofar Bakhtiar hugging a man, apparently her para-jumping instructor, after completing a jump in France.

"Her act was un-Islamic and against our social norms. She earned a bad name for Islam. She should be punished," Aziz told Reuters."

President Pervez Musharraf has been giving a lot of lip service to "enlightened moderation", but so far that is all it's been. In February, a Muslim man killed a woman minister of the government of Punjab province because he thought women should not be in politics. Last month women from the mosque's religious schools kidnapped a women from what they alleged was a brothel, accusing them of un-Islamic activities. Finally we have this.

Last Friday, Aziz announced the setting up of a Taliban-style vigilante Islamic court and vowed suicide-bomb attacks if authorities tried to crack down on the mosque and its followers.

European countries would do well to pay attention to what is happening in Pakistan, because they're not far behind. Of course, Michigan isn't that far behind, either.

If Islamofascism isn't stopped in its infancy, it quickly spreads through an area. At the rate it is growing in Pakistan, the "moderate" government won't be long for this world, and they'll be just another Muslim theocracy bent on the destruction of the west.

Labels: jihadistan

via Powerline. Photoshop by Derek at Freedomdogs, The sub-head quote is from this Mark Steyn column.

Labels: biting sarcasm

Iraqi insurgents caught setting an IED. They are then engaged by air power. By engaged, I mean they are sent most expeditiously on their trip to meet Allah.

Labels: Iraq, war

Don Imus is an idiot. Okay, that's not entirely fair, but it got your attention, didn't it?

I've never been a big fan of Don Imus. I think he jumped the shark a few years ago, and the only reason he's still on the air is because, well, he's Don Imus. Once you've been famous long enough, you are allowed to hang around a while past your expiration date.

Last week, in an on air discussion with his producer, Imus made reference to the Rutger's female basketball team as "...nappy headed hos."

Guess who is throwing a fit about that one? The Reverends Sharpton and Jackson are in full force, calling for boycotts, apologies, and Imus' head on a plate.

Allow me to point out here that I am in no way playing apologist for Imus on this one. After you've been on the radio for 30+ years, you should know enough to not throw up a slow one for race baiters like Sharpton and Je$$e. They make a living off of racial outrage, and this will provide them with enough steam to last until their next outrage.

Imus, therefore, was right to offer his mea culpas, and do the appropriate amount of groveling on Sharpton's radio show today.

However, calling for his head because of one comment? I think that's a little extreme. Anyone with half a brain knows that Imus isn't a racist, and one poor choice in words shouldn't end his career. According to Sharpton it should, though.

"'I don’t know what’s in your heart and I’m not going to call you a name, I’m not going to call you a bigot. I’m going to say what you said was racist, I’m going to say what you said was abominable, I’m going to say you should be fired for saying it,' Sharpton told Imus."

That, by the way, is an off-hand way of saying, "You're a bigot, and you have an evil heart." I just thought I would clarify that for you.

If Sharpton really wanted to hurt Imus, he should have ignored him. All he is proving now is that Imus is relevant. That and the fact that the media will put his (Sharpton's) ugly mug on the teevee anytime he wants to act outraged.

Maybe we should remind ol' Al of that first word in his name, Reverend.

Then Peter approaching asked him, "Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?"

Jesus answered, "I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times."
Matthew 18:21-22

Imus did something stupid. But after 30+ years on the radio, we all know he's not a racist. Sharpton, on the other hand, is willing to crucify someone at the end of his career for the short term goal of trying to still appear relevant. If Sharpton really wanted to impress me, he would have had Imus on his show, and after Imus made his explanations and apologies, he would have embraced him and forgiven him.

Then you could have sent flowers, because I would have dropped dead from the shock.

Labels: race relations

What better day than the one on which we celebrate the resurrection of Christ to discuss the mixing of faith and politics.

The last time I flew through Atlanta I forgot to take any reading material with me. I stopped in the book shop in my concourse, hoping something would catch my eye. Being the political junkie that I am, I ended up looking at the rack of books containing all the finger pointing by left and right, blaming each other for all the woes that face this country, when one title finally caught my eye, "Divided By God".

I devoured this book during my flight. It is, quite frankly, one of the best discussions on the topic of the separation of church and state that I have ever read. You will also find it interesting that his views do not line up with mine in most cases. He probably won't line up with yours, either. I heartily recommend it to anyone and everyone.

But since this is my blog, let's go back to talking about me. More specifically, the struggles I face when meshing my conservative politics with my belief in Christianity.

I know that surprises some of you, as right wing and Christian seem to naturally go together in this country, but for me it is an internal struggle which I rarely share.

In my politics, I believe in more individual liberty. I want to see freedom of speech, lower taxes, less government regulation, and more people taking responsibility for their own lives and success in life. In purely free market terms, there is no good argument for any kind of social spending by the government. People know what they need to do to support themselves, and it's up to them to do it.

However, as a Christian, we are commanded to care for the sick, the widows, and anyone else who needs it. I still don't believe in a forced redistribution of wealth, but I definitely believe in giving to charities and helping out others whenever possible. The same applies globally. Over the years I've given thousands of dollars to the churches I attended, a large portion of which went to support missionaries overseas and to help the people they serve. I believe in U.S. aid to foreign countries, because we have experience G-d's blessing as a nation, and should help to take care for countries less fortunate then ourselves.

Jesus said in Mark 16:15-16

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So, if I'm to take my faith seriously, the single most important command given to me is to preach the gospel. You will refer to this as proselytizing, witnessing, annoying the crap out of you, etc. But as a Christian, we look at what happens in this world as a mere prelude to what is to come. And if, as verse 16 says, those who do not believe shall be damned, then it's in everyone's best interest that we share this with everyone we meet.

Looking at the history of Christianity, it has, traditionally, flourished when it was oppressed. Christianity in America has been on the decline for quite some time. Christianity in countries which oppress it, such as China, has flourished. The same was true in the first century. Being a Christian in the first century church did not get you a spot as a commentator on television, or multi-million dollar book deals, or to be elected as President of anything. It was much more likely to get you crucified, beheaded, stoned, or fed to the lions. But for some reason, the church exploded. In just a few decades a handful of disciples took the message of the risen messiah from Jerusalem and spread it over much of the known world.

It wasn't until the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire that Christianity was first twisted into something it was never meant to be. This was the first time it became the state sponsored religion, and it became just as violent as the previous worshipers of the Roman gods.

Ever since then Christianity has been used as an excuse for many atrocities. The Spanish inquisition, the burning of witches in New England, countless beheadings throughout the world, and people being burned at the stake. In many instances, it was the established church killing Christians for crimes such as translating the Bible into a language that common people could understand, chipping away at the power that the Church held over them. But, as a Christian, we have to realize that a lot of very bad things have happened in the name of Christianity.

This includes the Crusades. This one is a much more sticky topic, because yes, there were a LOT of people killed. Actually, I visited the graves of some of the first victims of the crusades in the Rhein-Neckar valley, in Germany. The crusades achieved some good, such as stopping the advance of the Ottoman Empire into Europe, and did a lot of bad, like indiscriminately killing hundreds of thousands in an attempt to convert them to Christianity. Which, in case I wasn't clear earlier, is not how Christ taught us to spread the Word.

So, taking all this into account, the greatest commandment we have as Christians is to spread the Word, which is done most successfully under strife. As a citizen of this country, and a father, I want to see our country live, thrive and survive as the most free state in the world. But in doing so, there is also the inevitable decline of Christianity. So the question becomes, do I bite my tongue when it comes to political beliefs, watching the country decline into whatever is to come, which will ultimately be better for the spread of Christianity, or do I speak up, hoping to keep this the great country it has always been, and hope that Christians have learned their lessons on how to share the gospel?

Personally, I have no answers. I believe a persons personal beliefs have to guide their public personas, no matter what those personal beliefs are. Some of you are atheistic or agnostic, which will guide you in your beliefs. I am a Christian, which will always be my moral compass, no matter the decisions to be made. Have I ignored this moral compass in the past? Definitely. The Bible teaches us that we all sin. It's not an excuse, because in every situation we can, in the words of Nancy Reagan, "Just say no". Funny how sometimes that is the hardest word in the world to say.

There was also a time in my life when I questioned my faith. I think everyone goes through this at one time or another. I was raised in a "Christian" home, in that we went to church of one kind or another, but my parents did it more out of habit than out of any personal beliefs. My father became a Christian the year he turned 30, and is now a full-time pastor. I explored other religions as a youth, reading about everyone from the Mormons, to Jehovah's Witnesses, to Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. You name it, I probably owned at least half a dozen books about it. I also spent some time being very angry with G-d. Wondering, if He is so great, how come He allows so many bad things to happen in this world. At the time I was less concerned with the suffering of people the world over so much as I was upset that so many people close to me had died sudden and tragic deaths.

In the end I realized that it rains on the just and the unjust. Being a good person doesn't mean G-d is going to shield you from bad things any more than it means that bad people won't succeed in life.

In the end, I pray for this country, hoping that Christian ideals win out. Those ideals being freedom for everyone, regardless of race, creed, sex, whatever. That people are free to succeed in business, but also to use that success to help those less fortunate than themselves. I pray that churches, and the people who attend them, will not forget from whence they came. That we are all sinners, saved by grace, and that we should treat others as better than ourselves. That Christ himself took on the form of a servant, and washed the feet of his disciples, but we won't even venture into the inner-city to feed and clothe those on the street.

It breaks my heart that those who are most in need of help find it easier to turn to the government for help than to a church, knowing that it is much more likely that the church will look down it's nose at them, or shrink back in disgust. The church in America has become that which Jesus preached against, all dressed up on the outside, but dead inside. We stand in the doorway to Heaven, not entering ourselves, but neither will we let anyone else pass to enter.

For those of you who have been hurt by the church, allow me, on their behalf, to apologize. For those of you who have hurt me in the name of the church, I forgive you. Today, the day we celebrate the resurrection of Christ, I want to spend a few hours forgetting about politics, war, taxes, and political parties. Today, I pray that my often times aggressive style of writing doesn't do harm to my faith and my witness. I pray that my heart becomes a little less hard towards my fellow man.

Today, I pray for you.

Labels: christianity

If you're out celebrating this weekend, try to avoid using this spot.

Labels: pointless silliness