Shadenfreude

It goes without saying that I did not support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. Neither, in fact, did I support Donald Trump. I voted for neither. The reasons were many, some of which are shared by the two, others unique to each. There were other Republican candidates who, had any of them won the nomination, I would have voted for. Although I would never have voted for Bernie Sanders, he appears to have at least a modicum of integrity, unlike his primary election opponent.

I have the dubious luxury of living in a state whose electoral votes were never in doubt, so I was able to vote my conscience without any worry that my vote would make any difference. Were I living in a state that was actually in play, my decision would have been far more difficult. I honestly couldn't tell you whether I would have voted as I did, or very tightly held my nose and voted for Trump.

Like many, I was rather certain what the outcome of the general election would be. And, like many, I was quite surprised at the actual result. Since then it has been a rather wild ride. I won't go into details; there is no need. Suffice to say, a lot of Trump's words and actions have me shaking my head, but some have had me nodding. To be fair, it's possible that there would have been at least one or two things Clinton would have done that I would have been okay with, or at least not outright disgusted with... maybe.

The opposition to Trump, the wailing, gnashing of teeth, rending of clothes, invective and insults that have occurred since the election are unprecedented in modern American politics. If there are any positives to come from his victory, there are these:

• Many people who were perfectly fine with a large federal government, and especially a powerful executive, are getting a clue that maybe, just maybe, having all that power resident in one office isn't such a good idea.
• Many people are dropping the masks they've worn for many years. They oppose what they claim is fascism, but have thrown away all pretense and are utilizing tactics historically employed by actual fascists. Recent events at several universities bear this out.

There are people for whom I hold little to no respect, at least when it comes to their political views. They have been reliably disingenuous and dismissive, resorting to fallacious arguments, and exhibiting a thoroughly unjustified arrogance and attitude of smug superiority. What they fail to realize is that the election of Trump is in large measure a reaction to this. Perhaps the best piece I've read on this appeared on Vox, of all places: The smug style in American liberalism. Written before the election, the author realized that Trump actually had a chance:

Here's the conclusion I draw: If Donald Trump has a chance in November, it is because the knowing will dictate our strategy. Unable to countenance the real causes of their collapse, they will comfort with own impotence by shouting, "Idiots!" again and again, angrier and angrier, the handmaidens of their own destruction. 

The smug style resists empathy for the unknowing. It denies the possibility of a politics whereby those who do not share knowing culture, who do not like the right things or know the Good Facts or recognize the intellectual bankruptcy of their own ideas can be worked with, in spite of these differences, toward a common goal. 

It is this attitude that has driven the dispossessed into the arms of a candidate who shares their fury. It is this attitude that may deliver him the White House, a "serious" threat, a threat to be mocked and called out and hated, but not to be taken seriously. 

The wages of smug is Trump.

Which brings us at last to the title of this post. Whenever I see the reactions of these people to something outrageous that Trump has said or tweeted, whenever I see them apoplectic with rage and indignation over any action that he has performed as president, even if I myself find those words or actions reprehensible, it still requires effort on my part not to celebrate. This is especially true when they experience an epic fail as recently happened with Rachel Maddow and his 2005 tax returns. For I seem them living their nightmare, and I know they absolutely brought it on themselves and they deserve every second of it.

He says he can't... but he wants to.

While in Africa, Obama said he could win a third term if he was only allowed to run:

"I love my job," he told the assembled leaders in Ethiopia. "But under our Constitution, I cannot run again. I actually think I'm a pretty good president — I think if I ran, I could win — but I can't!"

Why is it that, whenever Obama says the law prevents him from doing something, he's actually working on a way to circumvent the law and do it anyway?

George's apology

George Takei has apologized for referring to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as "a clown in blackface" in response to Thomas' dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges. Many people who were offended might think that Mr. Takei's apology is not adequate but I would like to point out something that I think is rather important.

Many times when people who make offensive statements with regard to politics or political figures, they end up apologizing in a manner that indicates that they are not really sorry about what they said, but rather that anyone has called them out on it. The apology usually goes something like, "I'm sorry if I offended anyone," or, "I'd like to apologize to those who were offended." In contrast, Mr. Takei's apology states:

While I continue to vehemently disagree with Justice Thomas, the words I chose, said in the heat of anger, were not carefully considered. 

I am reminded, especially on this July 4th holiday, that though we have the freedom to speak our minds, we must use that freedom judiciously. Each of us, as humans, have hot-button topics that can set us off, and Justice Thomas had hit mine, that is clear. But my choice of words was regrettable, not because I do not believe Justice Thomas is deeply wrong, but because they were ad hominem and uncivil, and for that I am sorry.

Note that, while he does not apologize for his belief that Thomas is wrong - a belief he has every right to hold - he also does not qualify his apology. He says he is sorry, period. Although he says Thomas hit his "hot button topic," he claims it as a contributing factor to his error, but not an excuse that absolves him of responsibility for that error. While he may not admit to as egregious an offense as many believe him to have committed, and they're probably right, his apology is to everyone.

No George, it's racist.

Actor George Takei who, for the small percentage of people who don't already know, portrayed the character of Hikaru Sulu in the original Star Trek television series, several feature films, and even an episode of Star Trek Voyager (in flashback), is coming under fire for a statement he made in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. In his reaction to the dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas, Takei said that Thomas, "is a clown in blackface sitting on the Supreme Court. He gets me that angry. He doesn't belong there."

Many have responded that this statement is racist. The use of actual blackface, and the use of just the word, are routinely decried as inherently racist whenever they occur in contemporary times. Takei responded to this criticism with the statement (available at the above link):

"Blackface" is a lesser known theatrical term for a white actor who blackens his face to play a black buffoon. In traditional theater lingo, and in my view and intent, that is not racist. It is instead part of a racist history in this country.

So, basically, he is saying that Clarence Thomas is a white man who has applied dark makeup to his face to "play a black buffoon." And that's not racist. He attempts to separate the act from the history, and maybe he has a point. However, I wonder what his response is to the use of the very same argument in the controversy over the Confederate flag (that is, the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virgina). Although I cannot read his mind, and thus I cannot know for sure, I suspect he would say that argument is invalid and that the flag itself (that is, the design used on the flag) is inherently and irredeemably racist and must be forbidden. If so, then by his own standard his statement was indeed racist and any attempts to justify it fail by definition.

Mr. Takei has succumbed to the temptation that is experienced by many who are strongly passionate about something they believe to be right. He is so convinced of the correctness of his position that he simply cannot accept the premise that people of good conscience can disagree. Instead, the only possible motivation for any opposition must be evil - in this case, hatred of gay people - and thus any argument presented in opposition must be invalid on its face. Logic and reason are discarded, and any dissent is grounds for censuring the dissenters, or even censoring them.

The passion, and its associated narrow vision, has, I believe, caused Mr. Takei to misinterpret Justice Thomas' words. As noted at that article, the relevant text of Thomas' dissent reads:

Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that 'all men are created equal' and 'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,' they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

Mr. Takei apparently holds a view that is common among those on the left side of the political spectrum, namely that Government is the sole source of all good things. To them, for example, rights are not inherent, they are bestowed by government. If government does not specifically declare something a right, that right simply does not exist.

You can argue about whether or not Thomas is correct. However, he is, in these paragraphs, presenting a conservative (or, rather, classically liberal) view which is that there are things that humans possess inherently as a consequence of their very existence, and that government, while it can certainly infringe up on them, or suppress them, cannot remove them or replace them.

Symbols

Here's the thing: Symbols mean different things to different people. And if a symbol means something to you that you find offensive, or that represents evil deeds, it doesn't mean that it means the same thing to everyone else. Nor does it mean that you can claim that others must view that symbol in the same light as you do.

When Ben Jones, who portrayed the character of Cooter on The Dukes of Hazzard says this:

WHEN WE SAY OUR FLAG STANDS FOR “HERITAGE, NOT HATE” AND “PRIDE, NOT PREJUDICE”, WE MEAN IT. AND WE BELIEVE THAT OLD SAYING, “YOU CAN’T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GOING IF YOU FORGET WHERE YOU CAME FROM.”

then who are you to say that he doesn't actually mean it? Who are you to say that this isn't what that symbol really means to him and to others? If you don't like the symbol, don't display it. If you have a problem with others who do, then don't associate with them and politely inform them why. But don't tell them that they can't display this symbol because it can never mean to anyone what it means to them and can only mean to everyone what it means to you.

Pondering the ponderable

It occurs to me that, if you participate in or support the destruction of someone's career and life because he or she said one thing that you found offensive, you might want to reconsider whether your motivation is really what you claim it is.

What does it mean to be black?

If you're reading this, you're probably aware of the controversy surrounding Ms. Rachel Dolezal, the leader of the Spokane, WA chapter of the NAACP. It seems Ms. Dolezal has for many years claimed she was black when, as it turns out, she never was. I won't list the details here but, suffice to say, it looks like she made up a lot of her history, and may have made several fraudulent claims of race-based harassment.

So, why would a white woman claim to be black? Before I answer that, allow me to say that I really dislike using these two words because I believe them to be inaccurate and a simplification. "Black" people and "white" people run a gamut of many different skin colors and shades. Also, I dislike the use of the word "race". The way I see it, there is only one race of people on this planet: the human race. I prefer "ethnicity" or even "racial sub-type." But maybe I'm just arguing semantics. For the sake of argument, I will use these words but with the caveats I just mentioned.

Why would she do it? I can think of a few possible reasons.

First, it has been reported that her parents adopted four black boys when she was a child. Perhaps she grew very close to them and wanted to be more like them. I don't know what the ethnic makeup of her neighborhood was but perhaps it was predominately black and she began to "act" black (see below) in order to fit in.

Second, depending on where you are, and what you are doing, being black is an advantage. Certainly if you want to advocate for civil rights and work to expand and secure them for minorities, being black provides you with experience and moral authority. A more cynical view would hold that she did it for her own personal benefit, knowing full well that, again, depending on where you are and what you're doing, it can convey a form of privilege, especially if you claim victimhood with respect to racial crimes.

Finally, and I think this is the least likely, she may actually be mentally ill. I am not a psychologist, psychiatrist, or medical professional of any kind, so I could be full of it but I'm reminded of cases of a condition commonly known as Munchausen Syndrome. If you've never heard of it, basically someone who suffers from this "feign(s) disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves." Perhaps she she wanted the attention that being black, and especially being a victim of race-based harassment brought and she got so wrapped up in it that it became her life. Again, I don't think this likely; it's simply something that occurred to me as a possibility.

Given what I know at this time, I think the second possibility is the most likely. Just as Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren claimed Native American ethnic heritage that they do not possess, she falsely claimed black ethnic heritage either because she thought it would help her do the work (which may certainly have been very good work) and/or because it provided an amount of power and authority that she otherwise wouldn't have had.

So, back to the subject of this post: What does it really mean to be black? I honestly can't answer that question, at least not completely. I, personally, am about as white as you can get, both in terms of the color of my skin and my culture. As far as I know, my ethnic heritage is German and Dutch, with a smidgen of Native American (either one sixty-fourth or one one-hundred-twenty-eight, I can't remember which), specifically Tuscarora. My aunt said I may have some Irish in there somewhere as well. But, more importantly, I can't answer that question because I believe it comprises far more than just the amount of melanin in your skin. Blackness is also cultural, and this is why I said "see below" when speculating that Ms. Dolezal began to "act" black. I think that, today at least, the cultural aspect of this is a far larger component than the physiological. I think most people will use both criteria to identify someone's race. If you "act" black, but are pale skinned with freckles and naturally red hair, you're not really "black". But, by the same token, if you're dark-skinned, with other physical characteristic that are typically associated with folks of African ethnicity, but you act in a typically "white" manner, a lot of black people are going to say you're not really black and may even criticize you or insult you (see: Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Justice Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, General Colin Powell (at least until he voted for Obama), and so on).

I think that it's the cultural differences that the biggest obstacles to racial harmony in this country. And, while I don't consider myself a racist, I do admit to being what I call a "culturalist." I believe that some cultures are objectively better than others. I believe that, for example, a culture that promotes education; that treats women equally to men under the law; that promotes solid, loving families (of whatever makeup) is better than cultures that don't (and I'm not referring to any particular culture here). Also, while most cultures adapt to changing circumstances, some can do so more readily than others. Those that adapt the best will, obviously, be more likely to survive.

I've basically run out of what I wanted to say. I can't think of a clever way to end this so I'm just going to end it by saying that, while my culture isn't perfect - far from it - I do think it's one of the better ones that has ever existed on this planet. Am I biased? Yeah, probably. But I also look at how many improvements in the human condition have come from my culture. Yeah, not everything has been an improvement but I think, on balance, it's done pretty well.

Oh bloody hell....

Looks like I'm going to have to pull this old blog out of mothballs and restore it to fighting trim. As the 2016 presidential race heats up, and with all sorts of other, shall we say, interesting events going on - both related to said race and not - I find myself with something I actually want to say.

Thing is, the place I usually say such things is one where I'm known by my actual name. I have to be careful, lest it blow back on me. I think I'd probably be okay with my employer but, should I say something that the powers that be there reflect badly on the company, they're well within their rights to reprimand me or even let me go. And that's just as it should be.

So I'm dusting this site off, giving it a fresh coat of paint, straightening the pictures on the walls, inflating the tires, clearing away the cobwebs, and whatever other metaphors you can think to mash together. Will I be posting regularly? Will I be coherent? Will anyone read it? Will anyone care? These are all questions yet to be answered.

Twice is coincidence....

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it's enemy action. -Auric Goldfinger (from the novel by Ian Fleming)

 A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a couple of posts about the shooting murder of Hadiya Pendleton which took place in Chicago (here and here). It was notable not just because she was a promising young woman, but because she had performed at the presidential inauguration earlier in the month. At the time, I speculated that she was not accidentally shot as part of a gang conflict. I considered it possible, though unlikely, that she was specifically targeted as part of an orchestrated plan in order to provoke an emotional reaction in support of forthcoming gun control legislation.

Now comes the news of a suspiciously similar shooting in Chicago:

Two people are being questioned in the shooting death of a Janay McFarlane, who was shot to death in North Chicago hours after her little sister sat just feet away as President Barack Obama spoke in Chicago Friday about the violence plaguing the nation.

This is the second time that the following circumstances have occurred:

• A young woman was shot.
• She was shot in Chicago.
• She was allegedly shot by someone who intended to shoot someone else who was there.
• She had a connection to the President.

This is, most likely, a coincidence. However, if it happens a third time, it will be stretching the bounds of credulity. I will be watching.

Fatigue

Former (not ex) Marine Robert Hall is tired. He is tired of many things and, to be honest, I'm tired of them too. All of them are worthy of excerpting but that would require copying and pasting his entire post. So I'll pick just a couple:

I believe “a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin.” I’m tired of being told that “race doesn’t matter” in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it’s all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois. I think it’s very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.

I’m tired of a news media that thinks Bush’s fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama’s, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush’s military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.

My thanks to Mr. Hall for his service in the Marines, and also for his service in the Massachusetts State Senate which I'm sure was just as honorable. If only we had more like him in our political class.

Steve Capus leaves NBC

Now I doubt that Steve Capus, newly-resigned President of NBC News, was directly responsible for the obvious instances of journalistic malpractice and editorial fraud that occurred under his watch. I'm sure he didn't personally tell the people who actually carried them out to do so.

At best, however, he is guilty of fostering a culture and environment where such acts were considered acceptable, if not encouraged. At worst, he's guilty of specifically instructing his staff to engage in such actions, though this obviously can't be proven. At the very least he should have taken steps to put a stop to it after the first one or two incidents, but he clearly did not.

In any event, he's out. I'd like to believe it's because of these incidents, though there are certainly other possible reasons. Regardless, they happened on his watch, and he's ultimately responsible for them. Here is the list from the Breitbart article linked above:

1. During last year's presidential election, Andrea Mitchell was caught manufacturing a Romney gaffe where none existed.

2. During last year's GOP primary, Ed Schultz edited video of Texas Governor Rick Perry to make him look racist.

3. In April of last year, the "Today Show" was caught editing audio of a 9-1-1 call to make George Zimmerman look racist.

4. In August of 2009, Contessa Brewer sliced and diced a photograph so it wouldn't look like a black man attended a Tea Party carrying a firearm.  

5. Just this week, NBC News maliciously edited video of a town council meeting to make it look as though Second Amendment civil rights activists heckled a parent who lost his son in Newtown.

There is simply no excuse. He had to go.

Overplaying of hand

Following on from the last post, I'm beginning to wonder if the Democrats/liberals/progressives have actually done it. Have they gone just a bit too far and awakened enough people to what's going on to push it over the tipping point? Dare I hope?

At the National Journal a couple of weeks ago, this article notes that the priority of the Democrat leadership in the Senate is no longer on gun control:

Calling for a "cautious" approach to gun control, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid downplayed the chances of the Senate renewing an assault-weapons ban in a weekend TV interview, suggesting he will instead move forward on measures with a better chance to pass muster in the Republican-controlled House.

This was before the so-called gun violence task forced headed by Joe Biden gave its suggestions to Obama and the resulting list of decrees, er, executive orders that the current occupant issued.

Now we're seeing reactions like the one in the video I linked to and also from the various Sheriffs and Sheriffs' organizations who have put Obama and others on notice that they will not comply with any laws that contravene the Constitution, especially any that call for the confiscation of weapons that become outlawed.

And, of course, there's the undeniable evidence of guns and ammunition flying off the shelves wherever they are sold such that we're facing a real shortage of ammo in common calibers. I bought some myself before the supply dried up.

The people are speaking loud and clear. Do you hear it in the White House Mr. President?

Straws

This is beautiful. Is it possible that the camel's back has finally been broken?

From Market Ticker via The Deth Guild.

More on the murder of Hadiya Pendleton

NBC News continues to carry this story at the top of their home page. It actually has links to two separate articles about it. I don't have a problem with this, per se; it's an important and newsworthy story. I did notice a couple of things in the two articles.

First, in this article which goes into further detail about who Hadiya was and what happened, is this paragraph:

At that moment, Chicago police say, a gunman came running down an alley behind the park, opened fire and then darted into a waiting vehicle and took off. No arrests have been made.

Second, in this article that quotes a friend of Hadiya's recounting her last words, is this:

Police, who believe Pendleton may have been shot with a revolver, say no arrests have been made in the case.

I'm assuming they believe this from witness testimony, from analysis of the bullets that were fired and/or the absence of spent casings which would have been left behind if the shooter had used a semi-automatic pistol.

Here's why I find these paragraphs interesting. First, no suspect is in custody. Second, given that he "darted into a waiting vehicle" this was almost certainly a targeted hit. Although not proof that this was an orchestrated event, it is not inconsistent with that hypothesis.

Third, and potentially the most important, he apparently used a revolver. Currently, the debate is over "assault weapons" and magazines that hold more than ten rounds. The latter also affects semi-automatic pistols. Revolvers, so far, have been largely absent from the debate. Now comes a high-profile murder that was ostensibly committed with a revolver. I expect there to be calls for restricting access to revolvers, and pistols in general, before long.

Again, not proof of a targeted murder to further a political agenda. But also not inconsistent with it either. Even if, as is likely, this was just a tragic coincidence, it will be taken advantage of by those who want to disarm the American people. Keep your eyes and ears open and remain vigilant.

Timing is everything

Update: Just now, about 50 minutes after I submitted the original post below, I checked around some of the major news websites to see which, if any, were reporting this story prominently. Of the ones I checked, admittedly not an exhaustive list, two had elevated this headline to the top: NBC News (formerly MSNBC) and Huffington Post. Not surprising. Expect this to be milked for all it's worth. Original post follows.   

On the same day that former Representative Gabrielle Giffords made her opening statement before the Senate hearing on gun violence comes the news that Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old girl who performed at the presidential inauguration last week was shot and killed yesterday in Obama's home city of Chicago.

It's a heartbreaking story, and my sympathy goes out to this young girl's family and friends who are grieving over her untimely death. It's a tragedy, in every sense of the word.

It's also damned interesting that this happened when it did and to whom. I also find it interesting that, at least so far, I haven't heard of any suspect being identified, let alone in custody.

Now, I know what the response will be, that I'm a conspiracy nut and that I need to take off my tinfoil hat and return to the mothership. Yet you must admit the timing of this event, and especially the timing of the reporting of this event, to coincide with the start of the Senate hearing, is awfully convenient for those who want to restrict or eliminate our Second Amendment rights.

I wish things in this country were such that any thoughts along those lines would be ridiculous even to contemplate, but they aren't. When I first heard about Hadiya, it was the first thing that came into my mind. It was so sudden and so shocking I had to close my eyes and take a deep breath before I continued that train of thought. I felt a wave of despair as I reflected further and concluded that I wasn't crazy and this scenario, while unlikely, was not implausible.

Until and unless I am presented with evidence to the contrary, I must assume that this was another random, senseless act of violence and that the identity of the victim and the timing of the shooting are coincidence. But I know I'm not the only one considering the possibility that it isn't, and I sure as hell wouldn't put it past certain, shall we say, interests to have orchestrated this terrible deed. I'll be keeping an eye on this story and how it develops.

Waiting for government

You know, this sounds awfully familiar:

Three months after Sandy struck, thousands of storm victims in New York and New Jersey are stuck in limbo. Waiting for the heat to come on, for insurance money to come through, for loans to be approved. Waiting, in a broader sense, for their upended lives to get back to normal.

While Congress passed a $50.5 billion emergency aid package on Monday, many say the rebuilding has been complicated over the past several weeks by bureaucracy. Some people are still living in mold-infested homes, while others are desperately trying to persuade the city to tear theirs down. Illegal immigrants who don't qualify for federal aid are struggling to scrape by. Small businesses are shutting down in neighborhoods where nobody seems to shop anymore.

Funny thing, though, I distinctly remember the coverage in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina being distinctly different than that following Hurricane Sandy. I wonder what changed since then? Could it have something to do with who was in the.......

Nah, couldn't be.

Stark difference

Via Breitbart comes this news out of San Diego, CA:

San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne is fully supportive of the Obama/Feinstein gun grab, and says if lawmakers play it right Americans can be completely disarmed within "a generation."

Contrast this with the statements from various sheriffs around the country which I've posted about. And thus we see the difference between law enforcement officials who are elected, the sheriffs, and those that are politically appointed.

Although I don't have independent corroboration of it, I bet the following comment made to this post at Free Republic is accurate:

I just got off the phone w/a Sergeant at the San Diego Police Department. I will not disclose his name. However, he said that I was the 1025 caller and the officers in the police department DO NOT support this opinion. The Sergeant was very pleasant and emphasized several times that the cops on the front lines understand the importance of our Second Amendment Rights. If anyone wants to call the phone # is 619-531-2777. BTW, the chief of police job is an appointed position made by the major of San Diego.

I wonder what the opinion of San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore is. The only thing I've found so far is a link on Google to a page that is no longer available but which contains a quote saying he believes people should be able to own guns but supports universal background checks. I guess we'll see what happens if and when the SDPD starts confiscating people's property.

Compromising positions

Compromise. Liberals and progressives keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

President Obama is suggesting that House Republicans on the issue of gun control appear neither willing to work with him nor inclined to listen to the American public on the issue.

That's because they are unwilling to compromise their principles, not only theirs but the ones this country was founded on.

“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.

As if Democrat districts aren't fully as gerrymandered, and as if Democrats aren't really concerned about the opinions of their constituencies.

Obama also said he can get 50 percent of public support for many of his upcoming initiatives, but “I can't get enough votes out of the House of Representatives to actually get something passed. … I think there is still shock on the part of some in the party that I won re-election.”

I don't care if you have nearly 100 percent of the public's support, there are some things which are absolute. Our rights as enumerated in the Constitution are such things. As for shock, well yeah. By all rights it should be President Mitt Romney yet, somehow, Obama managed to pull it off. There are all sorts of reasons why this happened, but the real shocker is that the Republican candidate lost the race that it was literally his to lose.

The president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations.

He said that moving forward on the topic means understanding that the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas.

He said it's understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting so “gun-control advocates also need to do “a little more listening than they do sometimes” in the debate.

As has been repeated over and over again, the Second Amendment is not about hunting. I believe that Mr. Obama knows this full well. This statement is a red herring. I believe he knows exactly the purpose of the Second Amendment and that's why he's pushing for more gun control. He knows that an armed populace is an obstacle to some of the things he'd really like to do if he could.

As for listening more, what he really means is "agree with me more."

Obama also said one of the biggest factors in the gun-control debate will be how it is shaped by the media.

“If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it,” he said. “I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.”

He's right about how big a factor the media will be in the debate. What he doesn't tell you is how biased a majority of that media  will be. Fox News and talk radio are the exceptions to the rule.

The president argued  that “the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word” and that party leaders, including Senate Majority Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, are “willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.”

And now we come to that word, compromise. Of course they don't recognize it as a dirty word. That's because they define it differently than how it's defined in the dictionary. As noted before, there are some things that are absolute, that you don't compromise on. You don't compromise on rights. Suppose that a Republican president were to advocate an official religion of the United States, not that I think this would ever happen. This would be a clear violation of the First Amendment, of course. Would Democrats be willing to compromise on this? How about we don't go so far as to make that religion the official religion of the country but we do limit any government aid to just that one. Would that be acceptable? Of course not. It's the same thing with Obama's desired gun control laws.

Has Obama himself ever fired a gun? Yes, he says, he and others shoot skeet frequently at the president's Maryland retreat, Camp David.

So what? The Second Amendment is not about sport. And I strongly suspect the interviewer knew in advance exactly what the answer to that question would be. He pitched that red herring slowly right down the middle.

The president also said much of the challenge in Washington is to make Americans feel that national politics is indeed connected to their day-to-day realities.

Oh we know this full well. The problem is, it's not supposed to be.

“And that’s not an unjustifiable view,” he said. So everything we do combines both a legislative strategy with a broad-based communications and outreach strategy to get people engaged and involved, so that it’s not Washington over here and the rest of America over there.”

It's a strategy alright. They've been working this strategy for decades, taking the long view, chipping away at our rights a little at a time, and hoping we won't notice the water coming to a boil. Well more and more of us each day are coming to the realization that this isn't a hot tub we're in and we're determined to turn off the heat. And to continue the metaphor, although we hope it doesn't come to that point, if it gets bad enough we'll do it the way Red Adair put out oil well fires.

Update: Sir M at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler provides his own take on (or should that be take-down of) Obama's comments from that article.

More men of the Law

Yet another addition to the growing list of Sheriffs who are letting the President and Congress know in no uncertain terms that they will uphold the Constitution is the Utah Sheriffs' Association. The final paragraph of their open letter to the President reads as follows:

We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.

They "are prepared to trade [their] lives." Hat tip to Bob Owens who notes, "What they mean by that has been left deliberately ambiguous." I'm not sure sure, Bob. Had such a letter been written a couple centuries ago, they might have pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. They would have been in good company.

Common Sense

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya: Democrats and liberals keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what they think it means.

Bob Owens elaborates:

The simple fact of the matter is that Barack Obama is completely ignorant about firearms, and if you gave him one, he’ d hold it awkwardly, looking quite stupid, and probably point it at half the people in the room before it was snatched out his hands as a threat to public safety.

The same holds true for Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carolyn McCarthy, Dianne Feinstein, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and the vast majority of politicians attempting to destroy a part of the Constitution they fear in their ignorance.

As I gained an understanding of the Constitution and just where the rights enumerated in that document as amended truly come from, I decided it was time to exercise that right guaranteed in the Second Amendment. I took some training and then purchased a pistol. I researched different models, tried several out at the range, and made my decision. I know far more about guns, how they work, how various types differ, and what they're capable of than any of these ignoramuses. My opinion on the subject ought by right carry near infinitely more weight than theirs.

So where does "common sense" come into it?

Barack Obama and his allies want “common sense” to rule on guns. I completely agree.

It is “common sense” to ignore the recommendations of people who are superstitious, factually ignorant, politically-motivated, and poorly educated.

It is “common sense” to engage with real experts, credentialed in their area of expertise, when important matters are before the nation.

It is “common sense” that politicians be held accountable for their assaults on the Constitution.

By all means, lets introduce “common sense” to the debate over firearms. It’s the last thing that anti-gun politicians, media figures, and activists really want.