Shocking, I know, but people are breathlessly reporting that the four "State Department officials" who resigned over the Benghazi scandal didn't actually resign, and likely won't receive any real punishment.
Here's the thing: they didn't do it. I know that at least half of the outrage is along the lines of "Hey, the Administration said these people are responsible, so why aren't they being held responsible." I get it. I also think it's silly and wrong-headed.
We know they aren't responsible. They had no authority to be responsible. The fact the Administration tried to tell us they were responsible in the first place is simply another crime and another part of the coverup.
When I went through the Benghazi Files, I pointed out that the minimum security standards were not met. I pointed out that Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked for additional security. I pointed out that only one person, the Secretary of State, had the authority to waive those minimum standards, and therefore the authority to deny the requests for additional security.
That's it. Hillary Clinton is the only person with the authority have done what was done- leave the Benghazi mission woefully unprotected.
Insofar as an investigation is called for, it is only called for to the extent that we should verify if Mrs. Clinton was acting under pressure from the President, or if she made those choices on her own recognizance. Personally, I believe it taxes credulity to say that the President was not at least aware of, and therefore in a position to overrule, the decisions made regarding the Libyan missions' security. This is why I think the President is directly responsible, and should be impeached. But even if you don't believe that, it is even harder to believe that four mid-level staffers would make the decision not to provide adequate security all on their own. That decision had to be made, and a signature given, by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
So I don't care that these four staffers are not being punished. They didn't do anything wrong, so far as we know. All of the decisions which lead to the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were made by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They are the only ones who even had the authority to make them.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Why "Gun Control" Doesn't Work
Okay, since we're still apparently "having the discussion" about gun control- a "discussion" which mostly involves responsible gun owners being harangued for the actions of a criminal- I think it's time we point out why Gun Control laws have never worked, and will never work.
Take this case, for instance.
See, the perpetrator in that instance was already a violent felon. He'd killed his grandmother with a hammer. Without looking, I'm guessing that the manslaughter charge was from a plea bargain, but that's a rant for another time. Legally, he already wasn't allowed to have guns of any variety. Not a hand gun, not a rifle, not a shotgun- none of it.
It's almost as if someone who is intent on committing one crime doesn't care about the fact he may be committing more than one. It's almost as if no amount of laws will convince criminals to obey them.
On the other hand, stricter gun control laws do disarm responsible citizens who could otherwise defend themselves. As the fine folks at PJ Media point out, the Newtown, CT shooting was stopped by a show of force. That is, the police showed up with guns, and the shooter didn't even wait to confront them; he just shot himself.
William Spengler was shot by emergency responders.
Neither of them was stopped by an unarmed populace wagging their fingers.
It may be a cliche to say "if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns," but it is also true. I can point to Europe, where they have a significantly higher instance of violent crime, even with their very strict gun control laws, than the United States. I can point to Mexico, which has virtually banned private ownership of firearms. How's that working out for them?
Rather than be reactionary and try to ban the icky, scary gun, maybe we could look at these things the way we do other crimes. Do we ban computers because the hacking group 'Anonymous' exists? Do we ban hedge funds and mutual funds because people like Bernie Madoff exist? Do we ban cars because their are crashes and because criminals use them?
No. We don't. We don't do those things because that would be a terrible infringement on innocent people's liberty in response to specific crimes. Yet every time a gun is used in a crime, especially a high profile crime, "guns" are blamed rather than the perpetrators. Do we blame money for Bernie Madoff? It can be argued that he ruined more people's lives than the shooter in Newtown, CT, and certainly more than William Spengler in Webster, NY.
We already have laws against murder. Ponzi schemes were illegal before Bernie Madoff started his. People who have decided to break the law don't care what the law is.
My defense against the Bernie Madoff's of the world is a combination of common sense (don't believe unbelievable promises) and finding a financial manager I can trust. What defense should I be allowed against someone who wants to kill me?
Take this case, for instance.
See, the perpetrator in that instance was already a violent felon. He'd killed his grandmother with a hammer. Without looking, I'm guessing that the manslaughter charge was from a plea bargain, but that's a rant for another time. Legally, he already wasn't allowed to have guns of any variety. Not a hand gun, not a rifle, not a shotgun- none of it.
It's almost as if someone who is intent on committing one crime doesn't care about the fact he may be committing more than one. It's almost as if no amount of laws will convince criminals to obey them.
On the other hand, stricter gun control laws do disarm responsible citizens who could otherwise defend themselves. As the fine folks at PJ Media point out, the Newtown, CT shooting was stopped by a show of force. That is, the police showed up with guns, and the shooter didn't even wait to confront them; he just shot himself.
William Spengler was shot by emergency responders.
Neither of them was stopped by an unarmed populace wagging their fingers.
It may be a cliche to say "if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns," but it is also true. I can point to Europe, where they have a significantly higher instance of violent crime, even with their very strict gun control laws, than the United States. I can point to Mexico, which has virtually banned private ownership of firearms. How's that working out for them?
Rather than be reactionary and try to ban the icky, scary gun, maybe we could look at these things the way we do other crimes. Do we ban computers because the hacking group 'Anonymous' exists? Do we ban hedge funds and mutual funds because people like Bernie Madoff exist? Do we ban cars because their are crashes and because criminals use them?
No. We don't. We don't do those things because that would be a terrible infringement on innocent people's liberty in response to specific crimes. Yet every time a gun is used in a crime, especially a high profile crime, "guns" are blamed rather than the perpetrators. Do we blame money for Bernie Madoff? It can be argued that he ruined more people's lives than the shooter in Newtown, CT, and certainly more than William Spengler in Webster, NY.
We already have laws against murder. Ponzi schemes were illegal before Bernie Madoff started his. People who have decided to break the law don't care what the law is.
My defense against the Bernie Madoff's of the world is a combination of common sense (don't believe unbelievable promises) and finding a financial manager I can trust. What defense should I be allowed against someone who wants to kill me?
Monday, December 17, 2012
Ban Human Nature
This piece, from Ace, sums up why I think most "gun control" advocates are either naive or dishonest.
As Ace points out, the only realistic way to stop gun violence is to prevent anyone anywhere from having a gun. That means police and the military, too. As long as guns exist, there is the possibility bad people will get them and do bad things with them. So the only plausible "gun control" that could prevent mass gun violence is an absolute ban on guns.
Now, Ace's point is primarily the dishonesty with which gun control advocates routinely act. He points out that they claim not to want to "ban guns," and yet, logically, that is the only policy they can pursue. I have a different point.
The only way to stop tragedies like what happened in Newtown, CT is to ban human nature. That's it. The only thing that could have stopped this particular tragedy, or any of the others before, is to lobotomize the entire population. Sure, it's the "nuke the site from orbit" form of deterring violence, but there's a reason that quote ends with "it's the only way to be sure."
Do gun control advocates believe that murder didn't exist until the 1364? Do they believe that people have not been wreaking violence against each other since before recorded history?
Here, they will often fall back on the dishonest line of argument that "guns make murder easier." That is, as far as it goes, a true statement. It is much easier to shoot someone with a handgun than it is to stab them with a knife. What it misses is the amount of effort these mass killers go to.
They often purchase semi-specialized equipment. They usually purchase special magazines and a fair number of them. They purchase ammunition, sometimes for weeks or months before the actual atrocity. Many of them map out exactly what they're going to do, and even have a plan for how to deal with the police (it usually involves shooting themselves, but it's still a plan).
Yet, for all this effort, we're supposed to think they would be deterred just because they could "only" use a bow or crossbow? Or are gun control advocates actually seeking to ban all projectile weapons? Well, I guess no one could possibly use an axe or a hammer to kill someone.
The fact is that people have been killing each other for as long as there have been people. You're never going to stop it, either. Indeed, what makes it so easy to commit these kinds of acts is not the existence of guns, but human nature.
See, everyone wants to feel safe. Weapons, by definition, are not safe (there is no such thing as an unloaded gun). Therefore, people tend to want to avoid weapons. In most cases, if you got people to sit down and think through it, they probably wouldn't be afraid of the weapons. They wouldn't even be afraid of some unknown assailant having a weapon. Their problem would be, I believe, that weapons make them realize how dangerous the world is in general, and they don't want those reminders. No one wants to be forced to realize, every single minute of every single day, how fragile life is.
So most people avoid weapons. My mother grew up on a farm in Western Texas. Her daddy required that she and her sister be familiar with how to shoot. Nevertheless, she's not particularly comfortable around guns. She doesn't particularly like them. In a life where guns were just a fact of life, and were used to save lives both human and animal on more than one occasion, she still would rather avoid them.
The problem with "most people" avoiding weapons, and wanting others to avoid weapons, is that it means the bad guys are more likely than the average person to have a weapon.
Imagine if this young man had walked into that school with an axe, or a sword. With the possible exception of the specific body count, do we really think the outcome would have been much different? No one there could defend themselves. To the extent they could, it would have been because they could have met him on some kind of equal footing; say, by grabbing a baseball bat from the P.E. closet.
You're never going to stop this kind of violence. It has been with us since the first caveman realized it was easier to kill Grog and take his stuff than to barter with Grog for Grog's stuff. It will continue until the race of Man is gone.
It's simply human nature.
As Ace points out, the only realistic way to stop gun violence is to prevent anyone anywhere from having a gun. That means police and the military, too. As long as guns exist, there is the possibility bad people will get them and do bad things with them. So the only plausible "gun control" that could prevent mass gun violence is an absolute ban on guns.
Now, Ace's point is primarily the dishonesty with which gun control advocates routinely act. He points out that they claim not to want to "ban guns," and yet, logically, that is the only policy they can pursue. I have a different point.
The only way to stop tragedies like what happened in Newtown, CT is to ban human nature. That's it. The only thing that could have stopped this particular tragedy, or any of the others before, is to lobotomize the entire population. Sure, it's the "nuke the site from orbit" form of deterring violence, but there's a reason that quote ends with "it's the only way to be sure."
Do gun control advocates believe that murder didn't exist until the 1364? Do they believe that people have not been wreaking violence against each other since before recorded history?
Here, they will often fall back on the dishonest line of argument that "guns make murder easier." That is, as far as it goes, a true statement. It is much easier to shoot someone with a handgun than it is to stab them with a knife. What it misses is the amount of effort these mass killers go to.
They often purchase semi-specialized equipment. They usually purchase special magazines and a fair number of them. They purchase ammunition, sometimes for weeks or months before the actual atrocity. Many of them map out exactly what they're going to do, and even have a plan for how to deal with the police (it usually involves shooting themselves, but it's still a plan).
Yet, for all this effort, we're supposed to think they would be deterred just because they could "only" use a bow or crossbow? Or are gun control advocates actually seeking to ban all projectile weapons? Well, I guess no one could possibly use an axe or a hammer to kill someone.
The fact is that people have been killing each other for as long as there have been people. You're never going to stop it, either. Indeed, what makes it so easy to commit these kinds of acts is not the existence of guns, but human nature.
See, everyone wants to feel safe. Weapons, by definition, are not safe (there is no such thing as an unloaded gun). Therefore, people tend to want to avoid weapons. In most cases, if you got people to sit down and think through it, they probably wouldn't be afraid of the weapons. They wouldn't even be afraid of some unknown assailant having a weapon. Their problem would be, I believe, that weapons make them realize how dangerous the world is in general, and they don't want those reminders. No one wants to be forced to realize, every single minute of every single day, how fragile life is.
So most people avoid weapons. My mother grew up on a farm in Western Texas. Her daddy required that she and her sister be familiar with how to shoot. Nevertheless, she's not particularly comfortable around guns. She doesn't particularly like them. In a life where guns were just a fact of life, and were used to save lives both human and animal on more than one occasion, she still would rather avoid them.
The problem with "most people" avoiding weapons, and wanting others to avoid weapons, is that it means the bad guys are more likely than the average person to have a weapon.
Imagine if this young man had walked into that school with an axe, or a sword. With the possible exception of the specific body count, do we really think the outcome would have been much different? No one there could defend themselves. To the extent they could, it would have been because they could have met him on some kind of equal footing; say, by grabbing a baseball bat from the P.E. closet.
You're never going to stop this kind of violence. It has been with us since the first caveman realized it was easier to kill Grog and take his stuff than to barter with Grog for Grog's stuff. It will continue until the race of Man is gone.
It's simply human nature.
Let's Be Honest
There's a problem in our country. It's a deep sickness that affects everything we do, or see. It's called "politics," and I don't believe it has a cure.
On Friday, the the town of Newtown, CT was the scene of a terrible act of evil. A young man, apparently mentally ill, took a veritable arsenal to a school, after having already killed his mother, and killed over two dozen people. He then took his own life. This is a senseless act of mindless violence.
"Senseless": It has no sense. No amount of rational thinking will ever allow us to understand what was going through that young man's head.
"Mindless": He wasn't using his mind. Perhaps he was incapable of using his mind. Someone thinking clearly doesn't target innocent children in some random act of violence.
As a nation, we all feel wounded by the events that unfolded. Some of those wounds will close quickly. Some of those wounds will never close. The only thing we should be worrying about is how provide some measure of comfort and compassion to the survivors of Friday's attack.
Yet, for some reason, people believe politics must be brought into the discussion.
One professional political pundit, I can't even remember which one, remarked that 2nd Amendment advocates would probably be calling for "arming kindergartners," before we even knew all the victims. See, it was important to get it on record immediately that more people having guns wouldn't have stopped this attack. Never mind that he's wrong.
In what was supposed to be a prayer service for the victims and their families, the President decided to make a call for increased gun control. On the other side of things, 2nd Amendment advocates were pre-politicising the event, since history says that exactly what did happen (increased call for gun control) would happen.
Now, those are things that can certainly be discussed. It is in our nature to want to avoid this kind of pain and monstrosity. When something like this happens, we rightly review to see what, if anything, could be done to prevent future recurrence. So I don't have a problem that it's being discussed. I do have two problems with the discussion, however.
The first, and most important, is the timing. The political discussion was occurring, on both sides of the aisle, by around 1 PM CST, if not earlier. The President politicized a prayer service. It seems little or no consideration was given to the grief of those affected.
The second reason, however, is that the discussion is not honest. As Ace so correctly pointed out on Friday, whenever Liberals say they want to have a "discussion" about guns, what they really mean is they want to demonize them and push for more gun control. They're just smart enough that they know they can't say that out loud. For the gun rights advocates' part, they seldom mention the shear danger involved with a totally armed populace.
Today there will be more posts from me. I've been out since last week with a bad back, and today is the first I can even really use my laptop while laid out on the couch. I hope to avoid some of the dishonesty in this discussion. Most of all, I hope that we can all be honest about our goals, and see the facts for what they really are.
On Friday, the the town of Newtown, CT was the scene of a terrible act of evil. A young man, apparently mentally ill, took a veritable arsenal to a school, after having already killed his mother, and killed over two dozen people. He then took his own life. This is a senseless act of mindless violence.
"Senseless": It has no sense. No amount of rational thinking will ever allow us to understand what was going through that young man's head.
"Mindless": He wasn't using his mind. Perhaps he was incapable of using his mind. Someone thinking clearly doesn't target innocent children in some random act of violence.
As a nation, we all feel wounded by the events that unfolded. Some of those wounds will close quickly. Some of those wounds will never close. The only thing we should be worrying about is how provide some measure of comfort and compassion to the survivors of Friday's attack.
Yet, for some reason, people believe politics must be brought into the discussion.
One professional political pundit, I can't even remember which one, remarked that 2nd Amendment advocates would probably be calling for "arming kindergartners," before we even knew all the victims. See, it was important to get it on record immediately that more people having guns wouldn't have stopped this attack. Never mind that he's wrong.
In what was supposed to be a prayer service for the victims and their families, the President decided to make a call for increased gun control. On the other side of things, 2nd Amendment advocates were pre-politicising the event, since history says that exactly what did happen (increased call for gun control) would happen.
Now, those are things that can certainly be discussed. It is in our nature to want to avoid this kind of pain and monstrosity. When something like this happens, we rightly review to see what, if anything, could be done to prevent future recurrence. So I don't have a problem that it's being discussed. I do have two problems with the discussion, however.
The first, and most important, is the timing. The political discussion was occurring, on both sides of the aisle, by around 1 PM CST, if not earlier. The President politicized a prayer service. It seems little or no consideration was given to the grief of those affected.
The second reason, however, is that the discussion is not honest. As Ace so correctly pointed out on Friday, whenever Liberals say they want to have a "discussion" about guns, what they really mean is they want to demonize them and push for more gun control. They're just smart enough that they know they can't say that out loud. For the gun rights advocates' part, they seldom mention the shear danger involved with a totally armed populace.
Today there will be more posts from me. I've been out since last week with a bad back, and today is the first I can even really use my laptop while laid out on the couch. I hope to avoid some of the dishonesty in this discussion. Most of all, I hope that we can all be honest about our goals, and see the facts for what they really are.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Shocker!: Democrats Negotiating in Bad Faith
So, for weeks, if not months, we've heard nothing from Democrats on the "Fiscal Cliff" except for the need to "raise revenue" by which they mean tax rates. This is such a thoroughly silly idea, that it doesn't even bear the most basic of scrutiny. For one thing, we don't have a "revenue" problem, we have a spending problem. For another, raising tax rates does not actually increase government revenue. If anything, it has a depressive effect by also slowing growth.
Now, however, we finally have some movement on the Democrat side. They've shifted positions! Wait, no, that was the goal-posts they just moved. See, now, it's not enough that we merely raise tax rates on actual job and wealth creators. No, now we also have to further extend Unemployment Benefits past 99 weeks. As though nearly 2 years of unemployment was not absurd enough, now it needs to be longer.
Let's assume that Democrats were negotiating, in the beginning, in good faith. Let's say they really wanted to reduce the deficits and (eventually) start paying down the debt. Let's further grant that they really believe that increasing tax rates will increase revenues this time, despite its utter failure every time it's been tried in the 40+ years. Even assuming those things (which aren't true, but go with me here), does it make sense then to further increase spending?
Even if we did have a revenue problem, and not a spending problem, in what world does it make sense to increase spending further when our deficits are already about 10% of GDP, we're already spending nearly 150% of tax receipts, and our debt is over 100% of GDP?
The short answer: none. It doesn't make sense. Increasing spending is the absolute wrong thing to do to close the deficits, even if you grant that increasing tax rates would increase revenue.
If that is the case; it if it is true that increasing spending is absolutely and obviously counter-productive, then it follows that the Democrats were never negotiating in good faith. They want the Fiscal Cliff. They want higher taxes on everyone. They simply assume that the spending will continue. Since we haven't had a budget in 4 years, but we've been spending anyway, I don't see how they're wrong, either.
Republicans must not budge on this. Let's go over the fiscal cliff together. And then, when it's time for another "continuing resolution" to keep spending money we don't have? Don't do that either. When it's time to increase the debt ceiling again? Don't do that, either.
The American People voted for the Fiscal Cliff. They also voted for deadlock, since they didn't see fit to give the Democrats the house back, or even a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Give them what they asked for.
Let it burn.
Now, however, we finally have some movement on the Democrat side. They've shifted positions! Wait, no, that was the goal-posts they just moved. See, now, it's not enough that we merely raise tax rates on actual job and wealth creators. No, now we also have to further extend Unemployment Benefits past 99 weeks. As though nearly 2 years of unemployment was not absurd enough, now it needs to be longer.
Let's assume that Democrats were negotiating, in the beginning, in good faith. Let's say they really wanted to reduce the deficits and (eventually) start paying down the debt. Let's further grant that they really believe that increasing tax rates will increase revenues this time, despite its utter failure every time it's been tried in the 40+ years. Even assuming those things (which aren't true, but go with me here), does it make sense then to further increase spending?
Even if we did have a revenue problem, and not a spending problem, in what world does it make sense to increase spending further when our deficits are already about 10% of GDP, we're already spending nearly 150% of tax receipts, and our debt is over 100% of GDP?
The short answer: none. It doesn't make sense. Increasing spending is the absolute wrong thing to do to close the deficits, even if you grant that increasing tax rates would increase revenue.
If that is the case; it if it is true that increasing spending is absolutely and obviously counter-productive, then it follows that the Democrats were never negotiating in good faith. They want the Fiscal Cliff. They want higher taxes on everyone. They simply assume that the spending will continue. Since we haven't had a budget in 4 years, but we've been spending anyway, I don't see how they're wrong, either.
Republicans must not budge on this. Let's go over the fiscal cliff together. And then, when it's time for another "continuing resolution" to keep spending money we don't have? Don't do that either. When it's time to increase the debt ceiling again? Don't do that, either.
The American People voted for the Fiscal Cliff. They also voted for deadlock, since they didn't see fit to give the Democrats the house back, or even a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Give them what they asked for.
Let it burn.
GOP Communication Classes?
On the CBS morning show "This Morning" Dick Armey suggested that much of the Republican plight in the November election stemmed from candidates who "said some dumb things." He believes the Republican Party needs to educate candidates on how to avoid saying such dumb things. With due respect to former Leader Armey, this is hogwash. No one should need to be "educated" so that they don't say that the body has rape-sensing hormones that prevent pregnancy, or that rape is "a blessing." In fact, no one did say the latter, and the former was at least based on a scientific hypothesis. The hypothesis has been soundly debunked, but it was an actually proffered hypothesis once.
No, the Republican Party needs to figure out that the Tea Party isn't going anywhere, and join forces. If the Republican party would partner with local tea party groups to help vet candidates, and put forward candidates who are both acceptable to grass-roots conservatives and unlikely to say "dumb things" in the first place, then we'd be in a better position. The problem with that is that the Tea Party represents opposition to much of what is wrong with the Republican Party, and the Republican Party doesn't like to admit that it has things wrong with it.
Until the local Tea Parties are accepted as legitimate partners with the Republicans, the two will work to cross purposes and Democrats will continue to be elected. In those instances when Republicans have embraced the Tea Party, they have experience success. Take a look at the Texas Congressional Delegation, for instance. Scott Brown was elected on Tea Party sentiment. He was not re-elected because he tried to out-Democrat the Democrat.
Communication is, indeed, an issue. It probably did cost us a couple of otherwise safe seats. But rather than focus on the window-dressing, the Republican Party needs to partner with grass-roots groups to help select men and women who are already able purveyors of the Conservative Message.
No, the Republican Party needs to figure out that the Tea Party isn't going anywhere, and join forces. If the Republican party would partner with local tea party groups to help vet candidates, and put forward candidates who are both acceptable to grass-roots conservatives and unlikely to say "dumb things" in the first place, then we'd be in a better position. The problem with that is that the Tea Party represents opposition to much of what is wrong with the Republican Party, and the Republican Party doesn't like to admit that it has things wrong with it.
Until the local Tea Parties are accepted as legitimate partners with the Republicans, the two will work to cross purposes and Democrats will continue to be elected. In those instances when Republicans have embraced the Tea Party, they have experience success. Take a look at the Texas Congressional Delegation, for instance. Scott Brown was elected on Tea Party sentiment. He was not re-elected because he tried to out-Democrat the Democrat.
Communication is, indeed, an issue. It probably did cost us a couple of otherwise safe seats. But rather than focus on the window-dressing, the Republican Party needs to partner with grass-roots groups to help select men and women who are already able purveyors of the Conservative Message.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Michael Moore: "Go Union!" History: "That's New."
Michael Moore is on twitter spewing against Michigan's Right To Work law, just passed by their legislature. According to him it's some kind of travesty. Never mind that every right to work state in the nation is doing better, economically, than Michigan right now.
So, on twitter, he claimed that anyone working on his next movie would have to be part of the union. Well, that's his choice, really, but it would be a departure. See, as recently as 2009 (the last time he made a movie), Michael Moore was avoiding using union labor wherever he could.
It's always so strange to me that these limousine liberals are all pro-union- right up until they see what union labor costs.
So, on twitter, he claimed that anyone working on his next movie would have to be part of the union. Well, that's his choice, really, but it would be a departure. See, as recently as 2009 (the last time he made a movie), Michael Moore was avoiding using union labor wherever he could.
It's always so strange to me that these limousine liberals are all pro-union- right up until they see what union labor costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)