Live from the Alamo City

The Chinese don't care as much as you think they do, Tommy.

2010-12-01T13:19:00.002-06:00

I'm sure Thomas Friedman thinks he's a really smart guy...

While secrets from WikiLeaks were splashed all over the American newspapers, I couldn't help but wonder: What if China had a WikiLeaker and we could see what its embassy in Washington was reporting about America? I suspect the cable would read like this:
...
Most of the Republicans just elected to Congress do not believe what their scientists tell them about man-made climate change. America's politicians are mostly lawyers - not engineers or scientists like ours - so they'll just say crazy things about science and nobody calls them on it. It's good. It means they will not support any bill to spur clean energy innovation, which is central to our next five-year plan. And this ensures that our efforts to dominate the wind, solar, nuclear and electric car industries will not be challenged by America.

Now, Friedman might sound like he knows what he's talking about, but consider this from Eric Berger, the science writer for the Houston Chronicle:

Is there any hope that China will take the game-changing first step by adopting a carbon tax? Why would they do so? Why would this be the harbinger of a global framework?

I believe that China has powerful reasons to place a rising fee on carbon: (1) China will suffer more than most nations from changing climate and rising sea level, (2) China has horrific air and water pollution from fossil fuels, (3) China wants to avoid the enormous costs and burdens that accompany fossil fuel addiction, (4) there is great economic advantage in having the leading low-carbon technologies.

Hansen is quite correct in asserting that China would have an easier time of instituting such a carbon fee simply because it could ignore politics -- "At the same time China has the capacity to implement policy decisions rapidly," he writes -- and simply impose a fee.

I'm not sure espousing the virtues of authoritarianism is the best way to win converts to your cause, but whatever. What really strikes me is that I have seen very little evidence that China would actually ever impose such a fee.

Consider the following comments from Huang Huikang, the Chinese Foreign Ministry's special representative for climate change talks, on the eve of the Cancun climate talks that began Monday.

"China's overriding priority will be to develop its economy, eliminate poverty and raise people's welfare, and our energy consumption and (greenhouse gas) emissions will experience reasonable growth for some time," he said.

That's pretty unequivocal for a diplomat communicating in public, as opposed to private cables, of course.

Now, we already know about Friedman's love affair with China's authoritarianism, so we'll leave that alone for now. What you wanna keep in mind is what the Chinese diplomat said -- namely, that his country's No. 1 priority was developing its economy, and that greenhouse gas emissions were going to be increasing for some time. Now, you'll note he said nothing about raising taxes on fossil fuels and such, which would seem to imply that he knows that said taxes would hamper that goal -- at least that's how it sounds the way Berger put it, but either way it doesn't seem so farfetched. So yeah, the Chinese do come off as pretty smart if Huang Huikang's comments are representative of their mindset -- just not smart in the way Thomas Friedman would like you to think they are. Apparently Friedman thinks those who read his columns are going to take his word as gospel as opposed to using their own critical thinking skills and seeking out alternative sources of information with differing and potentially more valid viewpoints. Somehow that doesn't surprise me, but being the visionary he thinks he is, you'd think he'd try harder.

There's a lesson here..

2010-12-01T12:47:00.000-06:00

...if only our elected officials will learn it:

AP IMPACT: Cartel arrests did not curb drug trade

On a sleepy boulevard of motels and fast-food joints near the Mexican border, police stopped a car with a broken tail light. In the trunk, he found a trash bag containing 48 pounds of narcotics, and in the driver's pocket, scraps of paper scrawled with phone numbers.
Almost four years later, a grave Eric Holder called his first news conference as attorney general and announced where those phone numbers had led — to a sweeping investigation called Operation Xcellerator, which produced the largest-ever federal crackdown on Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel, with 761 people arrested and 23 tons of narcotics seized.
Standing with Holder that day in 2009 was acting Drug Enforcement Administration chief Michele Leonhart, who declared: "Today we have dealt the Sinaloa drug cartel a crushing blow."
But just how crushing was it? An Associated Press investigation casts doubt on whether the crackdown caused any significant setback for the cartel.

Now, as you know, a lot of those on the left contend terrorists should be fought in the courts and on the streets with police and lawyers as opposed to on the battlefield with soldiers. One could say that the drug cartels are every bit as powerful as international terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda. If the law-enforcement approach works so dismally with the drug cartels, what makes liberals think it's going to work with terrorism?

Hey, sanity!

2010-12-01T12:24:00.000-06:00

On at least one Texas college campus, anyway:

Texas State University’s student government has become the first in Texas to endorse carrying concealed handguns on campus.
...

Two weeks ago, Texas State’s newspaper, the University Star, became the first student newspaper in Texas to publicly endorse the bill.

That editorial is here. As you'll see if you read said editorial, the Star had run editorials opposing concealed carry on campus, but as the editorial board's membership changed, so did the board's opinion. I can only imagine what the board had said before, but this is a nice reversal:

Students with licenses permitting them to carry should not be forced to unarm themselves before they set foot on campus. The idea of a university being a “safe haven” where guns are not allowed is the status quo, but why? This campus is not a high school full of minors. It is a place where adults come to learn and prepare themselves for reality — and guns and gun-enthusiasts are real.

I surely never thought I would see something like that appear in a college newspaper, even in the heart of Texas. That last line reminds me of an exchange I saw somewhere...

Anti-gunner: "I don't believe in guns."
Pro-gunner: "Ma'am, I assure you, they exist."

Sure is nice to see at least one campus newspaper acknowledging reality as opposed to going into full-bore hysterics as so many media outlets do.

Another feminist contradiction...

2010-11-30T12:05:00.000-06:00

...right here:

I am a 20-year-old college student who has found the man of my dreams. We both believe it is acceptable (and in our case, preferable) for a woman to be a stay-at-home mother and wife.
However, the number of people who have deemed our views "unacceptable" and "disgraceful" is astounding. I was actually spit on by a woman who accused me of being "the problem with women."

Wow, what does one say to that? It's as if the feminists say, "You should be free to make your own choices without fear of judgment, as long as you make choices we approve of." The treatment of Sarah Palin would seem to indicate they do the same thing vis-a-vis abortion, too. It strikes me that feminism really, well, isn't.

Movin' on up...

2010-11-30T11:20:00.001-06:00

...to Wordpress, that is...

I see several other bloggers I read using the JS-Kit comment system that, as you see, has disappeared from my blog. There's a reason for that -- they've one up in price, from $10 a year to about $120. So..yeah. I attempted to migrate the comments to Disqus, but for some reason they never got to their respective posts. So I set up a new blog, at http://thesouthtexaspistolero.wordpress.com/. Same blog, same title, just a different location. I will be posting here and at the new place, to give you all time to update your bookmarks and blogrolls accordingly. Thank you!

UPDATE! I was futzing with the template and my blogrolls disappeared. Gonna have to recreate them from scratch, so be patient...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you could do that.

2010-11-29T12:54:00.002-06:00

...or, I Get Referrals, from Irvine, California, "deer hunting with a 338 lapua."

Oh, I'm sure a .338 Lapua would make a FINE deer rifle, with that 200-grain bullet chugging along at 3340 fps or so and 4950 lb-ft. of energy at the muzzle. Compare that to, say, about 2620 lb-ft. for a 168-grain .308 round at about 2650 fps. If anything a .338 might be overkill, unless you're making routine shots from 1,000 yards-plus. But hey, as the old saying goes, smoke 'em if you got 'em. I'd hunt with it if I could afford the feeding costs. ;-)

He might not have meant to do it...

2010-11-29T12:54:00.001-06:00

...but she's still quite dead:

Admiring the twinkling Christmas lights downtown was one of Samantha Martin's favorite activities, her mother said, so it was no surprise her boyfriend took her to see the illuminated River Walk and watch the Holiday River Parade Friday night.
But several hours later, when Eduardo Mejorado still hadn't brought Martin home, her mother began to worry.
A San Antonio police officer who then knocked on Alma Martin's door confirmed her worst fears: Samantha, 22, was killed in a crash.
...
Mejorado was hospitalized in police custody. Later, Mejorado was charged with one count of intoxication manslaughter. He was released from Bexar County Jail about 11:45 p.m. Saturday after posting $35,000 bail, officials said.
...
“We love him and don't have any animosity toward him,” Alma Martin said Sunday. “I'm sure he misses her as much as we do, and I know that he would have never done anything intentionally to hurt her.”

Whether he meant to do it or not, Samantha Martin's still quite dead. If I were her father they'd have to hire armed guards to keep me away from that bastard. "How could you do that? How could you care so little about her safety that you would do such a stupid thing?" I do believe that when my little ones get old enough to date, their boyfriends will definitely be getting the third degree...

Sure, centrism deserves a place...

2010-11-28T09:25:00.000-06:00

...but not the kind of centrism Kathleen Parker advocates. I really don't understand why Bob Inglis' advocacy of a carbon tax in the middle of a struggling economy makes him a smart, sensible moderate as opposed to another would-be intellectual who completely fails to understand the consequences of such. No doubt Kathleen Parker would call Mark Kirk, for example, another sensible moderate because he wants to ban only semiautomatic rifles as opposed to all guns. Do you ever notice that Parker has never said anything about the libertarian brand of centrism, the one that supports, for example, gun rights AND gay marriage? It's always, ALWAYS about a little more taxes and spending than the Republicans want and a little less than the Democrats want. As one of the commenters said, "I guess in Kathleen Parker's world, a 'moderate' is a Republican who votes like a liberal Democrat, but conservatives are partisan extremists."

Huh. Wonder how he got those?

2010-11-28T09:03:00.000-06:00

I thought the handgun was the scourge of society, also...

First came the phone calls, which left the 55-year-old woman in a fetal position, sobbing on the floor. Then came the 32-page letter.
Each was a jarring reminder of that July day in 1975 when her mother and a family friend were killed in her West Virginia home by a man who refused to accept the end of their high school romance.
They also served as grim proof that the killer, Thomas Creighton Shrader, had finally tracked her down, despite her family's 1,200-mile flight to Texas and the passage of time.
...

Shrader, 56, is appealing the stalking conviction, and one delivered in July that found he was a felon in possession of firearms. Agents found two shotguns and a rifle in his Mercer County home after his November 2009 arrest.

Felon in possession of firearms. This guy broke the law! Imagine that!

One more time, friends and neighbors, do you know what Thomas Creighton Shrader is? Thomas Creighton Shrader is another person that the Paul Helmkes, Joanne Petersons of the world think is just fine in free society as long as they can't lawfully get a firearm. Not only that, but they think they have a mandate to make it harder for Mr. Shrader's victims to defend themselves. And the woman was also 19 years old when she and Shrader broke up, so the antis among us also would have told you back then that she didn't deserve to be able to carry a gun to defend herself against that madman because of her age.

So, you take all that, and once again you should see exactly why I think the anti-gunners among us are, if not evil incarnate, the closest thing to it that walks the earth. As I have said before, evil doesn't always come dressed in armbands and jackboots. Sometimes it comes in just a suit and tie, or a skirt and blouse, defending things like civilian disarmament and calling them "reasonable, common-sense gun laws."

Layers upon LAYERS of fact-checkers!

2010-11-27T11:59:00.000-06:00

That is, of course, what traditional media has over new media!

A .556-caliber Sig? Wow. I wonder what the effective range is with that thing. Wait, I suppose I'm getting ahead of myself here. Why haven't I heard anything about this gun? Have any of you heard anything? Did somebody sneak out this new caliber in, say, the last couple of days while we were all napping after Thanksgiving dinner?

Life for growing weed?

2010-11-27T11:45:00.000-06:00

Really?

With authorities closing in to seize 2,400 marijuana plants on John Robert Boone's farm two years ago, the legendary Kentucky outlaw vanished like a puff of smoke. The prolific grower has been dodging the law ever since...
...Boone, who's trying to avoid the life sentence he would get if convicted a third time of growing pot, has plenty of sympathizers in an area where many farmers down on their luck have planted marijuana.
"That's all he's ever done, raising pot," said longtime friend Larry Hawkins, who owns a bar and restaurant called Hawk's Place. "He never hurt nobody."

If anything, John Robert Boone set a great example. I hear a lot of people saying that American drug users have blood on their hands because their habits are fueling the violent drug cartel battles south of the border. (I can agree with that to an extent, though I do wonder how far it is from saying that to saying that American gun owners and the NRA have blood on their hands for opposing the tighter gun laws that the Mexican government wants us to enact.) Buying American-grown weed from folks like Boone takes that money and brings it home; of course, with the insane American drug laws, it only fuels the turf wars that take place here. But if we had more people like JRB here, it would at least lessen the potency of the argument that legalizing drugs wouldn't help matters because the cartels are so powerful now.

Add Pravda-on-Hudson to the list...

2010-11-26T12:15:00.000-06:00

...of those who don't think 18-year-olds should be able to defend themselves. How about another fun game of word substitution?

"Beyond the dubious legal claims, the idea that African Americans have a constitutional right to buy weapons and carry them loaded and concealed in public is breathtakingly irresponsible."

"Beyond the dubious legal claims, the idea that Irishmen who immigrate to America have a constitutional right to buy weapons and carry them loaded and concealed in public is breathtakingly irresponsible."

"Beyond the dubious legal claims, the idea that young Latinos ages 18 to 20 have a constitutional right to buy weapons and carry them loaded and concealed in public is breathtakingly irresponsible."

Or how about...

"Beyond the dubious legal claims, the idea that young individuals ages 18 to 20 have a constitutional right against self-incrimination is breathtakingly irresponsible."

"Beyond the dubious legal claims, the idea that young individuals ages 18 to 20 have a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is breathtakingly irresponsible."

"Beyond the dubious legal claims, the idea that young individuals ages 18 to 20 have a constitutional right to free speech is breathtakingly irresponsible."

We all know they'd rightfully get called out as a gang of bigoted assholes in any of those other instances, yes? Why is the right of self-defense so different?

(h/t David Codrea)

The Party of the United Race?

2010-11-26T10:32:00.000-06:00

Wow, talk about racial politics writ large.

Many Latinos have become disgruntled with both political parties...
Now I hear from people in their 20s who, in their disillusionment, are pining for something that had its heyday before they were born: the Raza Unida Party.
...
"The legacy of the Raza Unida Party is the concept of independent thought and that we can speak for ourselves," (party co-founder Jose Angel Gutierrez) said. "No ventriloquist needed."...
These days, Gutierrez's hobbies include tweaking nativists with comments about how Anglos are losing sleep over the browning of the United States.
"They think this is a white country," he said. "And when someone says the opposite, then that's the demon."

Just...wow. How sickening. "When somebody says the opposite, then that's the demon." Yes it is. And it's EXACTLY THE SAME THING when a white person says it too. For the life of me I cannot understand why so many blacks and Latinos in positions of "leadership" within their respective communities think racist statements and actions automatically become race-neutral when said or done by someone who's the "right" skin color. Maybe Jose Angel Gutierrez and his acolytes don't have white sheets and hoods in their closets, but that really doesn't make their racial politics any less odious. It only makes said politics less dangerous, at least over the short term. Over the long term, though, that's a different story, as has been said here before. We know what they want, even if they don't come right out and say it -- practically open borders, people coming to the United States who don't know English and have no desire to learn it or to assimilate into American culture, etc., which is going to -- as it always does -- lead to balkanization and tribal war.

And what about that whole "concept for independent thought" and "speak(ing) for ourselves"? Somehow I don't think that's so cut-and-dried, considering the ideology of the folks we're dealing with here. I would bet that just as with the two major political parties, the party bosses of this Raza Unida party are going to dictate the official positions of the party, and while certain factions might be allowed voices they won't have any real effect. Honestly, does anyone really think those assimilated Latinos would be allowed to have any say in the policies the party would advocate? It seems to me that such would be contrary to the Raza Unida's prima facie raison d'etre -- to advocate for policies that benefit a certain race, or even a certain other country. (Which makes the whole "independent thought" thing ironic, as it's not about thinking on an individual level, just a smaller group level -- which really isn't that independent, or thinking for oneself at all.) I suppose that might sound racist to some, but based on my own observations of the political scene I just can't come to any other conclusion.

Lack of respect, part God only knows.

2010-11-25T10:44:00.000-06:00

Somehow I didn't find this the least bit surprising. Liberals like Al Sharpton and Jay Rockefeller don't have any respect for the Second Amendment; what makes anyone think they'd have any respect for the First? And Rush should be taken off the air for "perceived" offenses? Somehow I think Sharpton thinks the mere existence of Rush Limbaugh is an offense to minorities. Say what you will about Rush, but at least he never falsely accused anyone of rape. From Nordlinger's column:

"One of those whom Sharpton and his partners accused (of Tawana Brawley's rape -- ed.) was an assistant district attorney, Steven Pagones, who was, needless to say, innocent (the crime never took place). After he was cleared, he held a press conference, which Sharpton, in his theatrical fashion, attempted to crash. 'Your accuser has arrived!' he bellowed. Sharpton had said before, 'We stated openly that Steven Pagones did it. If we're lying, sue us, so we can go into court with you and prove you did it. Sue us — sue us right now.' Oddly enough, Pagones did. He spent a decade of his life pursuing a defamation case against Sharpton and his accomplices, finally winning that case one glorious, cleansing day in July of 1998."

That was a hell of a lot more than a "perceived offense," yet Sharpton retained his freedom of speech. Yet he goes off saying that certain people need to be muzzled because of "perceived offenses." What a thoroughgoing asshole.

(h/t Alphecca)

Missing out on masterpieces. (UPDATED!)

2010-11-25T10:09:00.001-06:00

So everybody's making a big deal out of the Beatles' catalog being available on iTunes now. As far as that goes vis-a-vis the Beatles, all I can say is, meh. (I always thought that, along with Bruce Springsteen, they were one of the most overrated acts in pop music history. The Rolling Stones always appealed much more to me.)

But there is something about the whole thing that bugs me -- the whole downloading-just-one-or-two-songs-per-album phenomenon. For the life of me I can't understand why any music fan would do this. Whenever you get a group of fans together and a discussion gets rolling, inevitably said discussion is going to turn to "Favorite Unreleased Album Cuts." And such treasures are going to go undiscovered with this new business model that concentrates on the song instead of the album. I can think of (almost literally) a thousand examples for myself off the top of my head; but just for one example, if I had downloaded what were then my two favorite songs from Iron Maiden's Powerslave cd -- "Aces High" and "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" -- I would have missed out on "Losfer Words (Big 'Orra)," "Flash of the Blade" and "The Duellists" -- as Albatross said of that last one, "Never very popular, yet oh so good." The title track and "Back In The Village" were also worth the price of the cd even if they didn't end up being favorites.

And the same could be said for those thousand other examples. I don't know what this new business model holds for the future of the music industry vis-a-vis its profitability, but as far as creativity goes I don't think it's going to be good. What's the incentive for the artists and labels to spend all that money on recording 8-12 songs if fans are going to buy only two or three of them? And I know every genre's fans are going to be different, but what of unreleased gems from other genres -- like, say, George Strait's rollicking version of the Del Reeves classic "Good Time Charley's"? I sure hate to think recordings like that would go unmade or be phased out for more popular downloads. Thoughts, anyone?

UPDATE! Sabra with her comments made me think to Google "B-Side hits," which yielded this link. Some of my favorites:

"Born on the Bayou," CCR

"Not Fade Away," Buddy Holly

"Roadhouse Blues," The Doors

"Mercedez Benz," Janis Joplin

"Get Rhythm," Johnny Cash

"After the Thrill Is Gone," the Eagles

"Love Is A Rose," Linda Ronstadt

Now wouldn't it have been a shame if those songs had gone unrecorded?

Quote of the day, from a Facebook friend...

2010-11-24T10:21:00.002-06:00

"When POTUS pardons the turkeys, I'd hope you will think of the thousands of people who are locked away in federal prison because of unfair sentencing laws, especially drug laws (libs) and gun laws (conservs). Empty seat at this year's Thanksgiving table."

Would he have written this column...

2010-11-24T09:59:00.000-06:00

...before January 2009? Somehow I really doubt it. But either way Eugene Robinson really comes across as an ignorant tool, just as he does with everything else he writes. Profiling couldn't possibly work, huh? Then how does it work so well in Israel? They don't just profile by race. And there hasn't been a single plane out of Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport that has been hijacked since 1970. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that Eugene Robinson is living in some sort of alternate reality. Most modern liberals are, it seems.

That does sound just like him, doesn't it?

2010-11-24T09:43:00.000-06:00

Bob Herbert, that is, as quoted by Cal Thomas in the San Antonio Express-News:

Writing in the New York Times, columnist Bob Herbert says: "However you want to define the American dream, there is not much of it that's left anymore. Wherever you choose to look — at the economy and jobs, the public schools, the budget deficits, the nonstop warfare overseas — you'll see a country in sad shape....We have become a hapless, can't-do society."

And I'm sure Herbert has no clue that it's exactly because of what he and his kind believe in -- a Big Daddy Government that does everything for its citizens and paying for it with the fruits of their labors whether the people want it or not, sapping the strength and vitality right out of the American way of life and the "American dream." It's not so much what John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address now as it is "Ask what your government can do for you." Liberalism has fallen so, so far in the last 50 years, and it really is a shame, too. I've heard it said that JFK would probably be considered a neoconservative today, and that does sound about right, though I don't know that he'd be so willing to use military power to export American ideals as so many accuse neocons of doing.

I do wonder, though, if Herbert was so glum from, say, November 2008 to at least January 2009. I think I already know the answer to THAT...

No blog for you today....

2010-11-23T13:16:00.000-06:00

...but I did stumble up on some blogfodder that I don't have time to work with today, so stay tuned. ;-)

They say this like it's a good thing.

2010-11-22T13:07:00.000-06:00

And it doesn't surprise me, but still I shake my head...

"We had to bring something new to the table," (Rascal Flatts lead singer Gary) LeVox said. "Call it what you want but we sure love making country music and I think we've been able to open some doors for people like Taylor Swift. Who would've ever thought you'd hear Bon Jovi on country radio with Kid Rock? We might've had a little hand in opening the door to radio and getting them played."

I am reminded of Kevin Coyne's recent post at Country Universe:

Dear Country Music,

Don’t get too excited about Taylor Swift’s sales numbers. They have nothing to do with you.

And, of course, in the comments there people observe that they have heard people say things to the effect of "I don't like country music, but I love Taylor Swift." I've talked about all this before, but I don't see why Bon Jovi and Kid Rock getting played on country radio is a good thing. I'd be tempted to make an exception for Kid Rock given his professed affinity for the old country, but he seems to blow his potential as a Real Country Singer all to hell every chance he gets. And I've said before that I don't see why Taylor Swift's success within the country genre is a good thing. Why are certain artists so hellbent on attracting people to the genre who never had any appreciation for it? Going back to one of my favorite anecdotes, it was a mere hop, skip and a jump for me from Metallica's self-titled black album to the wonderful world of '80s thrash, power and progressive metal. (It might have taken longer if I hadn't gotten Sirius satellite radio, but still...) I don't see that working out in the context of country music, especially since Metallica's self-titled album wasn't nearly as different from their earlier music as Rascal Flatts and Taylor Swift are from older country music. I just don't see today's Rascal Flatts and Taylor Swift fan being tomorrow's Loretta Lynn and Merle Haggard fan, especially since radio has such an aversion to playing the legends.

So, given all that, it alternately makes me laugh and grind my teeth to see Joe Don Rooney whining about people not thinking RF is a country act. I am reminded of what the reviewer at Amazon.com wrote in his review of their debut album ten years ago:

"With harmonies as squeaky-clean as their faces, Rascal Flatts relish the pop and lite-groove direction that the genre has taken at the turn of the century. In fact, they seem to take pride in their distance from hard-core country roots. To their credit, this trio of earnest young men sounds as if they are truly enjoying themselves as they run through their bouncy, bubbly love songs. And at least these boys don't pay lip service to keeping country traditions alive in 2000."

That would have been what I'd have written had I not had such a visceral reaction to RF back in the day, as opposed to, "Good Hank Williams, do these guys suck." And membership in the Country Music Hall of Fame? The day Rascal Flatts gets into the Country Music Hall of Fame is the day they need to nuke the site from orbit, 'cause it'll be the only way to be sure.

(h/t Country California)

More unintended consequences!

2010-11-22T10:18:00.000-06:00

I wonder how many environmentalists are really giving this an honest look:

The first mass-market electric cars go on sale next month, and the nation's electric utilities couldn't be more thrilled — or worried.
Plugged into a socket, an electric car can draw as much power as a small house. The surge in demand could knock out power to a home, or even a neighborhood.

Now, if you'll remember, depending on which source you consult, between 45 and 60 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is generated by coal-fired plants, which have come under attack by the environmentalists in recent years because of their pollution levels. Yet you never hear any of them talk about that. The folks who wrote the column mentioned here didn't even mention electric cars and those unintended consequences as they advocated the institution of a carbon tax. No doubt they'd see electric cars as a godsend because of the money that would be raised via the power the cars would take off the grid. But it'd be fun to see what they'd say, in their more honest moments when they thought no one was listening.

Just because of her age?

2010-11-22T09:54:00.000-06:00

Such would seem to be the anti-gunners' answer to the question, "Why can't this woman and those like her own and carry a gun?"

At least four women are sexually assaulted in the greater Houston region every day — attacked in their homes and in their beds, in parking lots and on public streets, their assailants armed with pistols, knives, drugs and fast-flying fists.
...
And though most sexual assaults involve victims who either know or at least recognize their attacker, police estimate about 25 percent are simply random.
One such attack happened to a 19-year-old Houston woman snatched from her southwest Houston apartment complex two days before her high school graduation this year.

Of course, they don't say anything about people in that age group being licensed to drive. I wonder what they'd say if rape victims started running down their attackers with their cars. "Car registration and licensing NOW! Do it for teh rapists!"

What does that have to do with anything?

2010-11-21T13:39:00.001-06:00

Look, it's great that Andrew Traver is a survivor of prostate cancer, but I don't understand why the Christian Science Monitor sees this as a plus in relation to his nomination to head the ATF. I know that current military officers are under oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same," but from what I understand the vast majority of them endeavor not to BREAK that oath when they leave the service. Is it just me, or do Mr. Traver's post-Navy actions seem to be breaking that oath? Sounds like he never took it that seriously to begin with, considering his alliances with various anti-gun organizations.

Furthermore, shouldn't that be a conflict of interest that automatically disqualifies him from being head of the organization?

That whole sovereignty thing goes both ways.

2010-11-21T10:34:00.000-06:00

Apparently the Mexican people and government don't think so, though...

Without leaving American airspace, remotely piloted surveillance drones — outfitted with cameras that provide real-time video — fly along the Texas border searching U.S. territory for drug smugglers, illegal immigrants and potential terrorists.
They also are fully capable of peering into Mexico, where narco terrorists eviscerate the rule of law.
...
Although U.S. narcotics agents long have been in Mexico, there also has been public outrage of anything more intrusive.
“We have come a long way in terms of cooperation, but there are areas that still test Mexico's traditional notions of sovereignty,” said Tony Garza, the former U.S. ambassador to Mexico.

How nice. They get angry when they perceive Americans to be intruding on their sovereignty, but they have no compunction whatsoever about intruding on American sovereignty in several different ways, from protesting tougher immigration laws and border controls to agitating for gun bans. I realize the culture's different down there, and I suppose that's what Garza was getting at when he referred to "Mexico's traditional notions of sovereignty," but it'd be nice if Mexico stopped meddling in our business as they think our government is doing when the government shifts the drones' cameras slightly to the south. It strikes me that such is a hell of a lot less intrusive than their citizens and government officials coming to our country and demanding we change our laws to suit them.

Wow, Paul Helmke is losing it.

2010-11-20T14:59:00.003-06:00

Bob S. fisks him more than well enough, but really, Paul?

NRA Sides With Mass Killers Over ATF

That would more accurately read "NRA Sides with Peaceable, Law-Abiding American Gun Owners Over The American Version of the the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice." It's about bloody fucking time the NRA stood up for the interests of its membership, considering how they rolled over on their backs when Eric Holder was nominated for Attorney General.

Personally, though, I think it's at least a bit laughable that the NRA would come out in such blatant opposition to Andrew Traver, considering how the organization supports the existence of the ATF to begin with. I realize it may not be politically feasible to get rid of the ATF any time soon, and that the NRA's move is just the way they "play the game," but there's never going to be anyone in charge of the ATF who's any better than indifferent to the right to keep and bear arms. And the sooner the NRA recognizes that and acts accordingly, the better.