Well, it's been about a week since retired General0 Weasely Wesley Clark made his pronouncement that there is nothing about John McCain's military service that "qualifies" him to be president. I've been mulling that off and on, and I've come to the conclusion that Clark is absolutely right.
According to the Constitution, the qualifications for president are pretty simple, and military service is not part of them. Clark is absolutely right. One need not have served in the military to be president. Indeed, some of our finest presidents had little or no military experience -- Ronald Reagan, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson come to mind. On the other hand, some of our most disastrous presidents were men with distinguished military careers -- Ulysses Grant, Jimmy Carter, and (I'm ashamed to admit) New Hampshire's own Franklin Pierce all come to mind.
Indeed, the veteran status of our candidates has been of varying importance, often depending on how it favors the Democratic nominee: in 1992 and 1996, men who had been genuine war heroes were defeated by a man who actively avoided military service. The pendulum swung the other way in 2004 and 2008, when the Democratic nominees had the superior records. Now it seems it's back the other way, as a genuine, indisputable war hero is running against a man who never served (but, unlike Mr. Clinton, came of age after the draft was abolished and service was entirely voluntary).
So, it seems that Mr. McCain's military record really wouldn't be a good indicator of how well he would do as president. What, then, might it indicate about his character and judgment and personality?
Let me make one thing clear: I am not an enthusiastic McCain supporter. He wasn't my first choice for nominee. (That was Fred Thompson.) Nor was he my second or third choice. (Those were Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.) At one point, I had them both at my third tier of preferences, under the "I think I can live with them as president" category.
Since then, as I've learned more about Obama, he's fallen quite a bit in my eyes. McCain has dropped a little, too, but the simple fact of the matter is that they are the two choices we have.
So, General Clark doesn't like what McCain's service record says about his qualifications to be president. He joins a long list of distinguished Democrats who have chimed in on McCain's service.
Senator Jay Rockefeller: "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."
Senator Tom Harkin: "I think he's trapped in that," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."
Harkin said that "it's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."
(Harkin, it should be noted, was busted lying about and exaggerating his own military record during Viet Nam.)
Barack Obama backer and Democratic candidate for the U.S. House Bill Gillespie:
"Admirals' sons," Gillespie said, unopposed for the Democratic nomination in the 1st Congressional District held by Republican Rep. Jack Kingston, "were treated like royalty. They were privileged people. They were given a silver spoon. Their careers were prepared for them."Gillespie, a former Army officer who served in Iraq, said McCain was the kind of admiral's son who became a "maverick."
McCain, Gillespie added, was "somebody who needed to stand out, someone that needed to draw attention to themselves and ... was usually out for themselves."
He said his "heart grieves" for McCain's suffering as a POW.
"After that," Gillespie said, "he was somewhat of a celebrity and it went to his head. ... I think he was a self-promoter for the last four years (in the Navy.)
OK, that's one way of looking at John McCain's service record. Just for fun, for balance, let's look at it another way, shall we?
John McCain was a Navy pilot who mastered one of the most challenging -- physically and psychologically -- tasks any pilot can do: landing a jet on an aircraft carrier. That particular feat has been described as a "controlled crash landing," on a moving target. As I understand it, you have to land an aircraft moving over 100 MPH on to a runway that's moving away from you at over 30 MPH. And you can't do it straight on, you have to do it at an angle -- the landing strip on a Forrestal-class carrier (where McCain served) is about 10 or so degrees off to the left. To do this requires incredible focus, concentration, spatial perception, hand-eye-coordination, courage, and an instinctive knowledge of physics. To do this, repeatedly, is almost superhuman.
Toss in such conditions as crappy weather and darkness, and it gets even more impressive.
John McCain served in the military during a time of war, and participated in that conflict. What lessons might he have taken away from that? Well, as someone who's seen war up close and personal, who lost friends in that war, he knows better than any other candidate (probably since Admiral James Stockdale or Senator Bob Dole) just how horrific war can be, and how it should always be the last resort of our nation -- but that there are worse things than waging war -- such as waging a war and not winning, or not waging a war today that will prevent an even more horrific war in the future.
John McCain was shot down and captured by the North Vietnamese, where he was tortured for literally years before being released. What might one take from that experience? Well, that America has enemies, and those enemies can really, really, really hate us and will hurt us at any opportunity. And that it has been a very, very long time since we faced a foe that actually respected the rules of war. (I'd say that the last one was Nazi Germany, and while they generally abided by the rules of war, they had plenty of other moral and ethical failings that should keep us from growing too nostalgic.)
While a prisoner, McCain was coerced signing a "confession" of war crimes for the North Vietnamese. He says -- and rightly so -- that the lesson he learned was that every man has a breaking point, and he found his. He also learned that, under torture, a person can be compelled to say or do anything -- but will still be able to repudiate it after the torture has ceased.
John McCain was offered early release, as he was the son of an admiral, and refused. What might that say? That he understood his duties and obligations under the military's code of conduct (and even more important, but unwritten, rules of honor) and obeyed them: he refused any preferential treatment, and insisted that the rules and regulations regarding US military personnel taken prisoner be followed.
John McCain was not only tortured while a prisoner of war, he was permanently crippled -- he can't raise his arms above his shoulders. He probably qualifies under the Americans with Disabilities Act. As such, he's not only likely to be sympathetic to those who labor under disadvantages and disabilities, he's also an example of how to adapt to and meet those challenges, and how to not let them prevent you from succeeding in life in spite of them.
John McCain commanded men in a Navy squadron, a training squadron based in Florida. During his command, he helped teach a lot of young men how to do the nigh-impossible (cited above) and during his tenure, turned it from a mediocre squadron to an award-winning one. This shows both leadership, and the ability to get things done.
John McCain spent 24 years on active duty in the United States Navy, retiring at the rank of Captain to run for Congress. One way of looking at this is that this is a man who has devoted his entire adult life to public service, to serving the nation in any way he can.
Now, do I believe all of what I just wrote? Hell, no. Some I think is true, some I think is flat-out spin, and most of it is some of both. But it's just as valid an interpretation of McCain's record as that being spun by Barack Obama's proxies -- if not more so.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Large parts of his military experiences would serve a President McCain well. Other parts would not. His utter lack of experience in the private sector, especially, would be a detriment. Fortunately for him -- but unfortunately for the rest of us -- his opponent has a similar utter lack of experience in "the real world."
Exploring the aspects of John McCain's service record, and how it would affect his possible presidency, is not only fair, but downright mandatory. But to denigrate that service, to slam what he did, is to spit in the faces of all of our veterans who did the very same things during their own careers.
Jay Rockefeller didn't insult John McCain. He insulted every bomber pilot who ever flew for our nation.
Tom Harkin didn't insult John McCain. He insulted every man and woman who chose to make a career out of the military.
In their haste to cut down McCain, they cut too wide a swath, and there was plenty of "collateral damage" among those we should most honor. That is disgusting and disgraceful, and that these two men are highly influential United States senators (and one of them the scion of one of the wealthiest and most powerful families the world has ever known).
But, in the end, if it means that a Democrat will win the presidency, that's all that matters, right?
C'mon Jay, you know military service only matters when it is a dem running and showing off his uniform. Kerry, Carter, Kennedy... all very important warriors.
Bush 41, Bob Dole, McCain, they did nothing important or impressive while in uniform.
/wizblue
Granted, it may have something to do with who they ran against... a faux tank commander, a draft dodger and now a messianic socialist.
::SCSIwuzzyJay, some people don't understand military ranks very well. I saw a commenter on another blog make the mistake of equating a Naval Captain with an Army Captain. He went on to comment how McCain must not be very competent to spend 24 years in the Navy and ONLY reach the rank of Captain.
So, one change I would suggest is to explain that a Naval Captain is equivalent to a full bird colonel in the other services and is just below the rank of Rear Admiral or Brigadier General.
::EricJay Rockefeller
"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."
Again here is Democrat that does not know what the hell he is talking about. The United States Navy nor did the United States Air Force use laser guided ordnance during the Vietnam conflict.
During this time, laser guidance was still in the experimental stages and used in a very limited fashion. It was not until the mid-1980s that laser guided ordnance was widely used by both services. The real test of the laser guided ordnance was during the first gulf war, where the weapons were used almost exclusively.
While it is fact, that jets of that era could fly at 35,000 feet, they mostly carried the old fashion iron bombs. These were used primarily for close in fighter support for the ground forces. The missiles that they carried were for shooting down any migs that the pilot might encounter and in some cases used to wipe out the radar installations at the SAM sites.
::stan25The Gipper may have had more military service than you give him credit for. His eyesight kept him from serving overseas:
MILITARY SERVICE OF RONALD REAGAN
www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/military.html
"Ronald Wilson Reagan enrolled in a series of home-study Army Extension Courses on 18 March 1935. After completing 14 of the courses, he enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve on 29 April 1937, as a Private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Cavalry at Des Moines, Iowa. He was appointed Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on 25 May 1937. On June 18 of that year Reagan, who had just moved to Los Angeles to begin his film career, accepted his Officer's Commission and was assigned to the 323rd Cavalry.
Lieutenant Reagan was ordered to active duty on 19 April 1942. Due to eyesight difficulties, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas. His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, as liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office. Upon the request of the Army Air Forces (AAF), he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the AAF on 15 May 1942; the transfer was approved on 9 June 1942. He was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the 1st Motion Picture Unit in Culver City, California. Reagan was promoted to First Lieutenant on 14 January 1943 and was sent to the Provisional Task Force Show Unit of This Is The Army at Burbank, California. Following this duty, he returned to the 1st Motion Picture Unit, and on 22 July 1943 was promoted to Captain.
In January 1944, Captain Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the sixth War Loan Drive. He was assigned to the 18th AAF Base Unit, Culver City, California on 14 November 1944, where he remained until the end of the war. He was recommended for promotion to Major on 2 February 1945, but this recommendation was disapproved on July 17 of that year. On 8 September 1945, he was ordered to report to Fort MacArthur, California, where he was separated from active duty on 9 December 1945.
While on active duty with the 1st Motion Picture Unit and the 18th Army Air Forces Base Unit, Captain Reagan served as Personnel Officer, Post Adjutant, and Executive Officer. By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the Army Air Forces.
Reagan's Reserve Commission automatically terminated on 1 April 1953. However, he became Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. Armed Forces when he became President on 20 January 1981."
Wish he was running for President this year!
::MikeI regret that my lack of adequate vocabulary prevents me from commenting on this matter in socially acceptable terms.
Makes me phsically ill to see the continual denigration of our military and the people who make it the finest in the world. I guess, in order to be a qualified candidate with military experience, you have to be on a par with that oozing pile of feces John Kerry.
This vote , for me, will be for an HONORABLE man,the antethesis of the Democratic candidate.
::irongrampaThe leftists loath the military and everything it stands for. Not democrats mind you, just leftists, which unfortunately have the steering power. So, a vote for Obama is a vote for four years of military diminishing. ww
::WildWillieI also suffer from electial dysfunction. Given the choices of the major parties, I'll have to go with McCain. Past performance is usually a pretty good indicator of future conduct. What has the Obamassiah accomplished in all his time in public service?
::GarandFanExcellent post Jay.
I am reminded of the post linked below, scroll down and read the section titled War of the Bumper Stickers.
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000136.html
::HughSJohn McCain violated the military code of conduct volunteered vital intelligence information that resulted in an increase of US casualties, made 32 Anti American speeches denouncing his country, and has never lifted a finger to seek accountability for other POWs who were known to be alive and never repatriated. the reason he can't lift his arms is because the bonehead didn't eject himself properly when shot down even though he had crashed 4 jets prior. He now stands to make millions from his wife's beer distribution business since he was the driving the force to normalize relations with his enemy.The fact that the Vietcong dedicated a statue to him and that as an admiral's son he didn't receive a promotion while in captivity should tell you something about this enemy collaborator and American traitor. He when in a Captain, disgraced his family and came out a Captain
::BonesWhat does actually "qualify" someone to be president? Personally I'd rather have someone who understands the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims no matter what superhuman feats he was capable of 40 years ago. I want someone who understands the problems we face and is willing to try and solve them, not outsource them to the highest crony non-bidder. I don't care if he seems like a guy you'd like to sit down and have a few beers with; how many people who thought that was a positive in 2000 still think it now?
Gen. Clark made a simple observation, which, at face value is true. Leave it to the howling media dogs to twist and parse it into some king of hideous political smear. Where were all the staunch defenders of the sanctity of military service 4 years ago when Kerry was under attack by a well-funded rightwing hit job? It appears that one's military record needs to be viewed through the political prism of selective moral outrage.
::groucho"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues." --Sen. Jay Rockefeller
Laser weapons weren't used in Vietnam until well after Sen. Mc Cain was shot down. Mc Cain used the Bullpup missile on some of his missions. The Bullpup was a rocket powered bomb that was controlled by the pilot of the attacking plane. It worked well in practice with accuracies of 5 to 10 feet.
But the problem in combat was you had to align the flare on the missile with the target and follow it in until missile impact, controlling your plane and the missile at the same time. It was a perfect setup for holstile AAA and SA-2 missiles. The pilot couldn't jink to spoil the enemy fire control computers' aim, wthout spoiling his own aim.
The other disadvantage was the pilot had to remain totally focused on his missile and target and couldn't keep and eye open for SA-2s. Wingman did that. There was a video posted about 2 years ago of McCain dodging a SA-2. Talk about hairy!
Sen Rockefeller is an idiot.
::Corky BoydAnd right on cue, someone (#9) provides a stellar example of the left's loathing for our military. Kudos, asswipe--ya couldn't have done better.
::irongrampaAn O-6 commanding a training squadron had better be a people, financial, and strategic manager, and if the part about bringing a meager to award winning status is veritable, then that speaks very strongly of his managerial skills (certainly the XO and first shirt often end up doing the real work to manage the people to get such an award, but the boss has to manage them).
Initially trained in the A-1 (yes, he did damage a few aircraft) a propeller driven ground-attack aircraft, he transitioned to the A-4 jet. He was injured during the Forestall fire when a bomb exploded while he was trying to save another pilot. Here's a dedication and sense of duty demonstrated before POW status.
There's plenty of garbage-quality managers that have managed to pin on an eagle in the uniformed services, but there've been no qualified and verified complaints about his service that I've seen. Lots of left-pandering BS, but nothing substantial.
The John Glenn response to detractors of military service is about as eloquent and honest a response to this nonsense as any I've seen. Too bad we can't put him up against Weasley in a face to face contest. It would be to watch.
Look! There's a forest right there in amongst the trees.
This discussion might be of interest if John McCain were even a viable candidate -- but he's not.
::Adrian BrowneUh, Mr. Tea, I need to correct one of your errors. Jimmy Carter's presidency was definitely not "disastrous." Recall that he won the Nobel Peace Prize in part for his successful efforts to bring a lasting peace between Egypt and Israel. In addition, he successfully returned to Panama its canal, thereby ensuring that the Panamanians would be less angry with us. He got all the hostages taken by the Iranians out alive, and he set a fine example regarding conservation, wearing a sweater indoors and installing solar panels on the White House.
::HermanJohn McCain opposed the recent GI Bill but didn't have the courage to vote against it.
He just didn't vote.
That's more "weasel" than "maverick."
::Adrian Browne#12
I don't loathe the military at all. I wouldn't have a problem with McCain if he hadn't spent a career sealing his records forever.
Gen Clark is right, military service don't mean squat when electing a president. And if It did, I wouldn't elect a president who collaborated with the enemy to save his leg and receive preferential medical treatment that was not afforded to other POWs who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Of the thousands of POWs that passed through the Hanoi Hilton, Mc Cain has managed to get maybe 6 to vouch for his alleged heroism. I ain't impressed. If he traded vital military information to save his leg, what else would he trade to save his butt as president?
Better military record won in 2004? What were you smoking?
George Bush was not a stellar officer. But John Kerry posted his fitness reports online on his website, without understanding how to read them. Guess what? For the era they were in, they showed a terrbile officer.
And the dates work out that John Kerry was given some sort of dishonorable discharge, as well as not retainingthe temporary rank he was given. Why a dishonorable discharge? 1. John Kerry came up for promotion to LT for the third time in 1975. Since he was NOT promoted, then the "up or out" rule applies. and he would have discharged. Since he won't show that discharge, it can't be good, and was sometime before that. He only shows the 1978 pardon - which is granted by the wrong agency to be anything but a pardon.
Thus, your premise that the officer with the better service record lost is WRONG.
::MycroftPosts # 14 - 17
Man You people are sick in the head.
::JAPHe is not running on his military record. It may be a strength but not his overriding qualification to be president. He also has 20 plus years in the Congress.....where he has been anything but a Kerry-like hanger-on. Right or wrong he has never been afraid to speak conviction. Unless situations change,( and not just personal ones), he is steadfast. -a leader. Let's all do ourselves a favor and TALK-UP this candidate rather than just wax incredulous at the nebulous "product" offered up in his stead by the socialists.
::Largin TestinHerman
In addition, he successfully returned to Panama its canal, thereby ensuring that the Panamanians would be less angry with us.
Uh Herman, the Panama Canal was American territory since the canal was started in the early part of the last century. The United States Government made a deal--albeit a might shady, but we made the deal-- with the new nation of Panama to keep the canal and the surrounding area as United States territory. The only ones that were squawking about the United States owning the canal were the Euro-weenies, the Chinese and the leftists that infested and still infest this country. That is one of the main reasons that Carter did not get re-elected to a second term.
Now look at who has control of the Panama Canal. That is right, the Red Chinese and we all know that there is nothing that the Chinese would like to do is take over this country. That can blamed on the Carter administration too.
::stan25#9
He when in a Captain, disgraced his family and came out a Captain
Thank you Bones for proving my earlier point that some people don't know what they are talking about when it comes to military ranks. McCain was a Lt. Commander when he was shot down in 1968. He was promoted to Commander in 1973, following his release as a POW. He was finally promoted to Captain in 1979, 11 years after he had been shot down.
McCain was such a disgrace to his family and the United States Navy that he received a paltry Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, three more instances of the Bronze Star, a second Navy Commendation Medal, and the Purple Heart just for his actions as a POW. What a loser.
Bones, if you can't get those simple facts right, how is anyone supposed to believe any of your other diatribe?
By the way here is the story of when McCain was shot down something in which you called him a bonehead:
On October 26, 1967, McCain was flying his twenty-third mission, part of a twenty-plane attack against the Yen Phu thermal power plant in central Hanoi that had almost always been off-limits to U.S. raids due to the possibility of collateral damage. As he neared the target, warning systems in McCain's A-4E Skyhawk told him he was in danger from enemy fire. He held his dive until he released his bombs at about 3,500 feet (1,000 meters) (he was later awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for this day). As he started to pull up, the Skyhawk's wing was blown off by a Soviet-made SA-2 anti-aircraft missile fired by the North Vietnamese Air Defense Command's 61st Battalion. McCain's plane went into a vertical inverted spin. Bailing out upside down at high speed, the force of the ejection fractured McCain's right arm in three places, his left arm, and his right leg, and knocked him unconscious. McCain nearly drowned after his parachute dropped him into Trúc Bạch Lake in Hanoi; the weight of his equipment was pulling him down, and as he regained consciousness, he could not use his arms. Eventually, he was able to inflate his life vest using his teeth. Some Vietnamese, possibly led by Department of Industry clerk Mai Van On, pulled him ashore. A mob gathered around, spat on him, kicked him, and stripped him of his clothes; others crushed his left shoulder with the butt of a rifle and bayoneted him in his left foot and abdominal area. He was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Lo Prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton" by American POWs.
I think Bonehead better describes someone who calls himself, well Bones.
::EricMcCain's service is indicative of one trait I do admire--a willingness to try and do good for the whole rather than just the individual. I disagree with a lot of McCain's decisions and choices, but I don't think they are out of malice.
Obama strikes me as the sort of person who would sell out his friends in a heartbeat if it appeared he might personally be affected by it. He's done nothing to show me otherwise as one after another of his "close, personal friends" are disavowed. He's convinced me he'd pitch the country out just like his friends if it benefited him.
::Faith+1bones
Another troll has been spreading the same garbage about McCain. I'm more inclined to believe what Bud Day and James Stockdale have to say about him.
And this turns out to be an old story:
http://www.miafacts.org/mccain.htm
http://www.miafacts.org/mccain.htm
Today's winners are Gerald(Missouri) Mayor Otis Schulte and former Gerald Police Chief Ryan McCrary. They get the award for the following.
Bill A. Jakob, 36, of rural Washington, Mo., may have pulled off the ultimate scam when he convinced an entire police force, mayor, and board of alderman, he was a federal drug agent.And as the Gasconade County Republican has documented, police and the town's city council bought this con man's story. The police conducting raids on people's home without search warrants, which should have tipped off these clowns. The day before the truth came out, Mayor Schulte swore Jakob in as a reserve police officer.Representatives of the FBI, the MSHP, and the Franklin County Sheriff's Department executed a search warrant Tuesday afternoon at a home of Police Chief Ryan McCrary in the 200 block of West Springfield, according to Gerald Mayor Otis Schulte. McCrary was placed on administrative leave on Monday. Investi-gators removed computer equipment and several other items. A routine trash collection at the resi-dence caused a near panic agents poured out of the house attempting to halt the trash truck as it pulled away. Two agents jumped in an SUV and pursued the truck with their lights flashing. They were able to retrieve the trash. Det. Scott Briggs, Franklin County Drug Task Force is shown carrying the trash container back to the garage.
As a result, Police Chief Ryan McCrary, Lt. Scott Ramsey and officer Shannon Kestermont were placed on paid administrative leave Monday afternoon and fired Tuesday (see box on top left).
According to McCrary, Jakob first came to Gerald about three months ago. He showed McCrary a badge supposedly issued by the Department of Justice, Multi Jurisdictional Task Force. He explained that his job with that agency was to help small communities by providing extra resources to help fight illegal drugs.
A con artist conning law enforcement. It was all easily preventable too. Linda Trest of the County Republican claims to have found out Jakob's past in about an hour. Jakob once owned a trucking company but had gone bankrupt, he briefly worked for small police departments in IL and MO but never gained certication as a law enforcement officer, and once pled guilty to misdemeanor sexual assault.
The blundering by local officials is still under way. Jakob is a free man, in spite of his taking part in over a dozen illegal raids on people's homes. If he put restraints on even one person, that's battery. Why hasn't those charges been filed at least? This story broke in mid May but only gained national attention in late June. Just recently a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of over 15 people has been filed asking for 11 million dollars. After the truth was discovered, most of the Gerald police department including its chief were dismissed. Now residents are asking the Mayor to resign. Schulte continued to defend Chief McCrary in the aftermath of this scandal.
If you want to read more about the Bill Jakob, go to the Gasconade County Republican website and conduct a story search. Bill Jakob may well deserve the award, but instead I'm naming Gerald(Missouri) Mayor Otis Schulte and former Gerald Police Chief Ryan McCrary today's Knuckleheads of the Day. They should have known better in addition to letting down the community they were elected or appointed to serve.
Hat tip- Jonathan Adler at the Volokh Conspiracy
Doesn't surprise me. The brass always seemed impressed by anyone with federal ID. Was working the front desk one evening when two FBI agents came in and flashed their badges. I commented that "I thought I smelled Kansas wheat and apple pie when you opened the door." Neither one cracked a smile, so I continued, "Yep, you're Fed's no sense of humor either." The watch commander, a lieutenant, who'd been standing nearby looked like he was going to have stroke. :o)
::GarandFanYou know it's bad when you have you've been duped by your very own Captain Dwayne Hernandez (a/k/a "Spanish Mike" Alvarez). Isn't "Reno 911" required veiwing for all law enforcement officers?
::langtryWashington is just up the Missouri River from St.Louis so this quote fits:
If you send a damned fool to St.Louis, and you don't tell them he's a damn fool,they'll never find out.
Mark Twain
::ImhotepHelms, who was first elected in 1972, was the longest serving Senator in North Carolina history. Raleigh's WTVD writes-
In North Carolina Helms was a polarizing figure, and he freely admitted that many people in the state strongly disliked him: "They (the Democrats) could nominate Mortimer Snerd and he'd automatically get 45 percent of the vote." Helms was particularly popular among older, conservative constituents and was considered one of the last "Old South" politicians to have served in the Senate. However, he also considered himself a voice of conservative youth, whom he hailed in the dedication of his autobiography. He is widely credited with helping to move North Carolina from a one-party state dominated by the Democratic Party into a competitive two-party state that usually votes Republican in presidential elections. Under Helms' banner, many conservative Democrats in eastern North Carolina switched parties and began to vote increasingly Republican.Many people outside of North Carolina also had strong opinions about the Senator. Helms was a patriot, and it may only seem appropriate he died on the day the US celebrates its independence. RIP.Because of recurring health problems, including bone disorders, prostate cancer and heart disease, Helms did not seek re-election in 2002. His Senate seat was won by Elizabeth Dole, wife of long-time colleague and former Senator Bob Dole. Helms remains to date the longest-serving popularly-elected U.S. senator in North Carolina history.
Hat tip- James Joyner at OTB
I live in Raleigh and had met the Senator who was a patron of my High School here. He was a polarizing figure because he was a racist in the old days, essentially he didn't want something crammed down his throat as the "progressives" sought to do, for good, but sometimes for ill (affirmative action).
That said, in his later years, he changed his colors, hired blacks for prominent positions, and made some peace.
He will be remembered by people in some forgotten places, like Nicaragua, for trying to free them from the scourge of Communism which had us all under its cloud for most of the 20th Century.
God Bless, and rest well, the Conservative Lion of the Senate.
::MitchellHe boasted about whistling Dixie next to Senator Carol Moseley-Braun in an elevator and supported Apartheid. Obviously a pretty bright guy and a clever rhetorician, though.
::hyperbolistSo when someone eulogizes you, HB, will there be a mini-HB there to snark too?
::epadorToo bad Bobby Byrd doesn't follow his example of stepping down when infimnity begins to take it's toll.
::GarandFanWhat snark? He believed white people to be superior in kind to black people. He believed straight people to be superior in kind to gay people.
My comment is a hell of a lot more measured than what some people here had to say when Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with brain cancer. I meant it as a compliment--seriously--when I said Helms was bright and good with words.
::hyperbolistJesse didn't live to see President Obama take the oath of office. I'm guessing a lot of folks will be whistling Dixie four years from now.
::John S...and they'll all reveal themselves to be ignorant, stupid, petty, immoral animals.
(You forgot to finish your comment, John.)
::hyperbolistIt is Independence Day, conservatives. In order for the antiquated, intolerant, hateful notions of Jesse Helms to die with him -- you must declare your independence from them -- for a brighter tomorrow, filled with human progress.
Good luck, conservatives.
::Herman"It is Independence Day, conservatives. In order for the antiquated, intolerant, hateful notions of Jesse Helms to die with him -- you must declare your independence from them -- for a brighter tomorrow, filled with human progress.
Good luck, conservatives."
This ignorant, pompous, bloviating, idiotic lecture brought to you by the same party that features Senator Robert "KKK" Byrd.
::Tom BlogicalAt least old Jesse didn't kill a girl in his car while traveling home from a cocktail party . . .
He cancelled out Teddy's vote, thank God. Can you imagine if the libs. had no push back in the '80's??? We'd still have dictatorships all over latin america, a Soviet Union, etc.
All for the sake of accomodation, just like they are trying now with their empty vessel, Obama.
::MitchellFrom powerlineblog.com, worth remembering the "true" facts, as opposed to the liberal made up ones, in this case about the ad against Harvey Gantt in 1990:
"But the real issue is not whether the ad played on fears, or whether Gantt could believe the ad was run. The real issue is whether Gantt supported legislation that would lead employers in some instances to deny "best qualified" whites a job. If so, then there was nothing wrong in depicting that result in the ad, since the fears the ad "played on" would be legitimate.
This issue turns on the nature of the Kennedy-Hawkins Civil Rights Act to which the ad refers, and whether Gantt supported it. There is no dispute as to the latter point. As I recall, it's also the case (though this point is not essential) that the legislation failed to pass the Senate by only vote, and thus would have passed if Gantt, not Helms had been representing North Carolina.
As to whether the Kennedy-Hawkins bill is fairly called "a racial quota law," the issue is a bit more complex. Certainly, nothing in the proposed legislation (which was enacted in substantially modified form as the Civil Rights Act of 1991) expressly called for racial quotas. But there are substantial arguments in favor of viewing the bill as paving the way for quotas. National Review made that case here; the Heritage Foundation here. This was also the view of various organizations that represent businesses.
Kennedy-Hawkins could reasonably be viewed as paving the way for quotas in two ways. First, it proposed to change the standard of proving discrimination, and the burden of proof, in ways that would induce employers to adopt quotas. In essence (and to simplify a bit), under Kennedy-Hawkins evidence of the statistical under-representation of minority group members in an employer's workforce or a particular job category would create a presumption of discrimination. The employer then would have to meet a higher standard of proof in defending its selection devices than previously existed. This would lead to quotas because some employers would voluntarily balance their workforces along racial lines to avoid lawsuits. I know from having represented employers that some think and act this way. The less rigorous the standard for proving discrimination through numbers, the more often employers will rig their numbers through the use of quotas. When that happens, the color of your skin can indeed be more important than your qualifications.
Second, Kennedy-Hawkins proposed to overturn a Supreme Court decision holding that persons who are not parties to an employment discrimination consent decree containing racial preferences (i.e. quotas) can challenge decisions taken as a result of the decree in a subsequent employment discrimination suit of their own. In other words, whites harmed by a quota contained in a certain form of settlement, would be unable to sue thereafter. These whites would still have the right to object to the quota prior to the entry of the decree, but as a practical matter that's not likely to happen. Folks like the gentleman depicted in Helms' ad generally first learn of a quota, if at all, when they get the rejection letter or its equivalent.
In sum, though Helms' ad cast the Kennedy-Hawkins legislation in a highly inflammatory light, there's little doubt that its passage would have resulted in some "best qualified" whites being passed over for jobs that, in the absence of the law, they would have been selected for. For better or for worse, inflammatory ads are the norm in tough political contests. One can argue that they should be avoided when the topic is race, but I don't find that argument persuasive. Race remains a key issue, and debate over it should be no less robust than over other matters."
::MitchellIt's amazing that only libs bring out the race card...
Hypocrites..
::lowmalR.I.P. , one of the few Senators with a pair who dared to call it the way it was.
::GmacIt's not suprising. In 1981, Doctor Jones warned of the dangers that the Ark imposed...it is Helms fault for not heeding that warning...and that's what happens. You die:
http://www.socoolaz.com/article.cfm?articleID=30223
Meybe we should complain to the Canadian Big Bother Board that HB is spouting hate speech and inciting racial tension.
::epadorGood riddance. Another Old Guardsman that belonged to a different time and place has perished. Let the bugs have him.
Editor's note: "ClayAiken" is also, apparently, "Skeeter" and "Sticky" from my own "Rights -- And Responsibilities" thread. This is his/her/its warning to settle on a single identity and "stick" with it, or he/she/it will be banned. We don't tolerate sock puppets around here.
J.
Hey, Clay, "It," you'll be maggot food soon enough, yourself.
At least Helms did something with his life before meeting this fate. You, nothing.
::MitchellHyper, you are without a doubt classless. I know, someone else was mean so that means you can be. Kind of juvenile, even for you. ww
::WildWillieMuch has been made recently of the meaning of the plot-line behind WALL-E, Pixar's newest animation. Conservatives have been debating whether this movie is an attempt at environmental indoctrination of our kids or a well camouflaged conservative message. World Magazine did an interview with Andrew Stanton, WALL-E's filmmaker, for its June 28th edition and asked about the movie's meaning. The entire interview is worth reading, but this part is particularly interesting:
WORLD: How does WALL•E represent your singular vision?STANTON: Well, what really interested me was the idea of the most human thing in the universe being a machine because it has more interest in finding out what the point of living is than actual people. The greatest commandment Christ gives us is to love, but that's not always our priority. So I came up with this premise that could demonstrate what I was trying to say--that irrational love defeats the world's programming. You've got these two robots that are trying to go above their basest directives, literally their programming, to experience love.
With the human characters I wanted to show that our programming is the routines and habits that distract us to the point that we're not really making connections to the people next to us. We're not engaging in relationships, which are the point of living--relationship with God and relationship with other people.
WORLD: The depiction of humanity is pretty stark in this movie.
STANTON: Well, when I started outlining humanity in the story, I asked myself: What if everything you needed to survive--health care, food--was taken care of and you had nothing but a perpetual vacation to fill your time? What if the result of all that convenience was that all your relationships became indirect--nobody's reaching out to each other? A lot of people have suggested that I was making a comment on obesity. But that wasn't it, I was trying to make humanity big babies because there was no reason for them to grow up anymore.
That's the argument that conservatives have been making against more government control and womb to the tomb governmental care. It will make Americans, independent and resourceful by nature, lazy and unambitious. In my book, that's a good message for American kids - all kids - to learn today.
Megan Basham, the author of the World piece has a side bar in which she offers her take on the movie and she offers this:
And though on the surface WALL-E looks like it's selling the easiest, trendiest message going today - environmentalism - it's too smart for that.True, the foundation for the story is that humanity has left the planet heaped in garbage. But far weightier themes - like how technology distances us from the wonder of creation and how that distance cripples us spiritually - play a bigger role. In fact, if Stanton criticizes people for anything, it's for worship of leisure. Because they live to be cared for rather than to care, the few human beings WALL-E meets have become, to use Stanton's words, giant babies - literally feeding on milk rather than solid food. In contrast, WALL-E, the meek little trash collector, accepts stewardship in a way that people have rejected. And because love springs from service, he comes to love the creatures that inhabit Earth. That's not an environmental message, it's a biblical one.
Amen. Great Post to follow the DI.
::epadorI am looking forward to seeing this
movie, and this isn't something I
ordinarily do.
Wall-E is certainly one of the best films I've seen in a LONG time - so much so that I'm going to go see it again some time this weekend, and it's been years since that happened.
I even bought toys (a little Wall-E and Eve set) to put by my computer. And I'm an old fart.
I have seen the movie, and it is a simple love story. I see no reason to analyze it.
::Dodo DavidPixar making a good movie that has a moral hidden in it? Say it ain't so!
::The ListkeeperGrasping on to a film maker because he gives a religious publication the time of day and isn't an avowed satanist so maybe he likes you. Or your kids. Or does he? Update when the message is deciphered.
Which reminds me of the time I first saw Pasolini's "The Gospel According to Saint Matthew" thanks to the socialists at PBS who were probably keen on Pasolini's avowed Marxism. But, hey: best "Jesus movie" ever made, including Mel Gibson's root canal. So it just goes to show: script, camera. The rest is tensil, lines for your mind to connect.
Check it out. Italian neo-realism, non-actors, zero budget, best angel ever, bookends the movie perfectly. *****/*****
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+gospel+according+to+saint+matthew&sitesearch=#
Confession: Re: "messages" and influences: I was dragged to CS Lewis "Christian" borefest (Narnia/Caspian) and found myself having impure thoughts about Georgie Henley the whole time.
bryanD:
Best go back to your milk so's you don't have another impure tantrum.
::epadorBack before fireworks and cookouts and beer and parades, Independence Day was about one thing, and one thing alone:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Its sad but predictable how far astray our society has strayed, yet still there is a ray or two of, dare I say HOPE [damn Obama for bastardizing that noun into a verb in a thinly veiled imperative in Newspeak from Big Brother], in that reading these words some of us may be inspired yet to reshape our course to independence, not co-dependence.
::epadorGreat post Jay.
And may I use my freedom to say, Fuck of epador have another Brawndo and a big ass taco.
Paragraph 2 flies right in the face of the California jokesters in power. And D.C. for that matter.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government,"
Unless of course You are governed by the Jerkinator and twosome Newsome, in which case who cares wether the huddled masses consent or not.
::JAP1215 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines reenlisted today in Iraq. Some people say they love their country; others prove it. Thank you, brothers and sisters.
::jdgjtrHappy Independence Day, people.
I suggest that at some point during the day, all of you take a moment and give thanks to those who made this day possible.
::irongrampaAs one gets older, the birthdays get to be more of a celebration of life and friends than a big party and present affair. Tacos and stimulant pop have nothing to do with it, nor does a cooling coprolite masquerading as magma extrusion. I'm going to celebrate with my family and a baseball game in Seattle. Go TIgers!
And thanks for the early post, JT. From Sea to Shining Sea a Happy Fourth for our nation. Kudos to our uniformed services. Humble pie for our elected officials. And real hope for our unenlightened citizens.
::epadorYou got one point wrong, Jay. Beer predated our Independence. In fact, historians have been arguing for years which building was built first at Harvard; the chapel or the brewery.
::DJ DrummondThe Fourth of July took on new meaning for me many years ago when I shared the day with a friend visiting from Europe and he asked why I thought it was so special. Something came over me at that moment and the words to describe why poured forth in a torrent and made me realize even more than I had consciously thought in the past how special it really is.
::OysterNone of us will ever be privileged to read a more beautifully written document.
::OLDPUPPYMAXMy thoughts on the 4th of July
Many years ago, men, less pampered than myself, took a most solemn vow. With both words and their signature, they started, knowingly, down a path that not only meant a true and just life, but one that could have just as easily meant in their death. They stood up against not only the tyranny of rule from afar, but tyranny within their every day lives. Yet they still took up this commitment. With the full understanding of its weight, and its consequence, they stood up for ideas that were to them very much self-evident. Yet, at the time, the same thoughts were so revolutionary that it could cost them their lives.
They toiled in secret. The wrote, then rewrote, then rewrote again a document whose ideals still stand the test of our times. A document that some have remembered, and some have forgotten. A document written with prose we are not accustomed to some 224 years later, but whose message still rings true today.
These men were our neighbors. Our friends. Our fathers. Our Loved ones. They were smart men. Just men. Men who understood the times in which they lived, yet left us a document that still stands the test of time. They saw absolutes, not nuance. They saw a life where people could be free, just, and proud.
These men lived in a time we could not possibly understand. Where soldiers could be quarters in our own houses. Where the local government could not act on the will of the people. Where the rule of law could be shaped at the whim of dictatorship. Where the standing army was above the people, not subordinate to the people. And where the government itself was above the people and not by the people.
We must remember the ideals in which this Declaration was composed. If not each year, every day we must remember this grand experiment that some though would fail. It is but through the sheer truth of its ideas that is has endured for so long. The ideals that all man shall be free in their quest for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are ideas that we have all been taught.
Let us not forget them. Let us not only remember them by days market on a calendar. Let us live them. Each day.
Seattle comments:
Tigers got whupped today. No echoes of "Love of the Game for Kenny Rogers.
No one dissed us for wearing Tiger paraphernalia. People all stood and sang the SSB at opening AND God Bless America during the 7th inning stretch.
Happy BIrthday America, and thank you sawb_23 too.
Yes, this is the fourth piece on Wizbang featuring Joe Horn, but that's because his story resonates across so many levels.
England is, socially, touted as superior to us in many ways. They have socialized medicine, they've banned handguns, and they have a very hefty immigrant population that they are bending over backwards to accomodate. (Both the head of the state church and now the nation's Chief Justice have endorsed allowing Shariah law to be upheld in Jolly Old England.)
Now, the mayor of the nation's capitol is going on record recommending that his city turn into a population of neighbors of Kitty Genovese.
Here's the fun thing: if everyone is, morally, a neighbor of Kitty Genovese, then it logically follows that everyone is a potential Kitty Genovese.
A city where no one will get involved in helping a neighbor being victimized is a city full of potential victims who can count on getting no help from anyone when they are the victim.
That's the logical conclusion of putting more and more and more faith in the government, more and more dependence on the government to fix everything. You get out of the habit of looking out for yourself and your neighbors.
In my earlier piece, I said we need a nation of Joe Horns. I think England needs them even more than we do.
Maybe they can just clone John Smeaton?
This should be my last posting on Joe Horn for some time, quite possibly forever. Unless another angle or connection comes to mind. But four should be enough.
I'm not sure the Brits will ever fully appreciate the Scots-Irish, even after more than a thousand years.
Jim Webb gives many conservatives reason to pause, but this is worth reading as it explains much about what makes Smeaton different:
http://www.amazon.com/Born-Fighting-Scots-Irish-Shaped-America/dp/0767916883
When weapons are outlawed, when the law-abiding are stripped of their ability to defend themselves, when the police are more concerned with keeping them that way than in arresting criminals, this is the result. There's no percentage in putting your own life at risk when your government ties your hands when you need to defend it, and won't do it themselves. So why would anyone be stupid enough to intervene in a crime they witness, or come forward afterward to testify? It was no accident that the Genovese incident happened in New York City with its Sullivan laws, the oldest gun control laws in the nation.
::SocrateaseAnyone care what the % chance of being killed with a firearm is in London vs., say, Houston? What about Tokyo?
::hyperbolisthyperbolist,
In Tokyo, it's about zero, as guns and bullets are illegal there. In London, I think it's slightly higher, as guns haven't been completely removed from society.
::Herman"In my earlier piece, I said we need a nation of Joe Horns." -- Jay Tea
Yeah, in Mr. Tea's ideal nation you would get situations like:
Gun Nut: "You stole that peach from the supermarket!!!"
Thief: "Yes, I was hungry!"
POW! POW! POW!
Gun Nut: "Well, that took care of that! Hey, could someone help me clean up all the blood here?"
It'd be more likely the gun nut would go "Damn, man - that's rough. Tell you what, I'll buy you a Whopper meal at Burger King, you come to my business tomorrow and we'll see what we can find for you to do for a couple of days."
The guy likely won't show - but he'll at least get fed.
::JLawsonRef #5. Herman, you may have a problem with legal, approved citizens have a weapons permit. Guess what Mr. IDIOT, the average American citizen is tired of the poor criminals getting by with robbing, killing, raping, etc.
Our Constitution gives us the right to protect ourself's. People like you think it's ok to let people rob, murder, etc. And you are probably also against the punks receiving the death sentence.
Please post your address online so all the punks can invade your house, rape your wife, kids, and kill all of you. This would be a good thing if you did so, as we, the average decent American citizen would be getting rid of another bleeding heart A**hole, and all of the offspring of said person.
::Allen"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Robert A. Heinlein
Look at DC to see the truth of that quote.
Every person in the US has (or should have) the right to protect themselves and their families from criminals. Believe me, if someone "invaded" my home I would be doing my best to take them out (you can read "kill" in that statement). I would be doing my best to protect our children, even though I'm female.
Yes. There are guns in our house. Yes. They are out of reach of the kids, but readily available to me or my husband, should we need them. And I would have no hesitation in using them.
JLawson,
You are of the opinion that in Mr. Tea's ideal nation, thieves can be rewarded (with free food) for theft rather than receive capital punishment. This is utterly preposterous.
MR. TEA'S OWN WORDS:
"The argument I have heard so many times when the subject of killing of criminals is "no material possession is worth more than a human life."
"I don't disagree with that argument. I REJECT IT." -- Jay Tea
::HermanAllen, you just wished rape and murder upon the family of someone you haven't met because you disagree with his positions on a blog. You need some help, you sick fuck.
::hyperbolistNo, hyperbolist, he didn't wish that because he disagreed. He wished it as a response to being accused of being ready to shoot someone over a peach.
And I, for one, am a big fan of the proposal for gun-control advocates being required to have large, high visibility signs in their front yard and on their vehicle declaring to the world that their personal space is a GUN FREE ZONE.
Herman, you are truly a king among imbecils. Few people are genuine dense enough to extrapolate vigilante justice from a man's defense of his neighbor's property. But just for the sh*ts and giggles, let's run with your example.
First, guess what? Stealing is one of those things that a lot of people believe to be wrong. Has something to do with what most of Western culture accepts as a very long standing moral code. In addition, the "wrongness" of stealing isn't dependent upon circumstance. It matters not that a thief is "hungry" when he steals food, theft is still wrong, and food in the criminal's belly is food out of the hands of law-abiding people. Would I shoot someone for stealing a peach? Probably not, unless it was coming out of my refrigerator. Would I blame a store owner for shooting a shoplifter, no matter what their "haul"? Nope.
What needs to end is the rationalization of crime, along with the "entitlement" mentality that's wrecked everyone's perspective on property. Urban culture encourages and glorifies "getting what's mine" by taking from others, and one has only to watch a prime time game show for a few episodes before hearing one of the contestants' supporters claiming that the contestant "deserves" the prize.
The hard truth is that nobody automatically "deserves" food, healthcare, clothing, shelter, or ANYTHING beyond the opportunity to legally acquire those things. If more people paid the ultimate price for lazily taking shortcuts, perhaps the shortcuts wouldn't be so appealing.
A quote attributed to Judge Roy Bean stated that he didn't hang men for stealing horses, he hanged horse thieves such that other horses didn't get stolen.
::Jamie"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Robert A. Heinlein
"Look at DC to see the truth of that quote." -- ElvenPhoenix
Ridiculous argument. Any person in DC wanting a gun can just take the subway to Virginia, as guns definitely aren't outlawed there. Nope, you want to look at the effect of an absolute gun ban, you look toward places like the island of Japan.
Homicide rate, United States: around 5.5/100,000 people
Homicide rate, Japan: around 0.5/100,000 people
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder )
Yep, the U.S. rates is 11 times greater. WOW.
Of course, with the effective removal of guns and bullets from Japanese society, it's going to be harder not just to murder people, but to rob or rape them too. Hence, a career as a violent criminal is less appealing.
::Herman"Allen, you just wished rape and murder upon the family of someone you haven't met because you disagree with his positions on a blog. You need some help, you sick fuck." -- hyperbolist
Allen's definitely not the only conservative in need of psychiatric help. Strange part of all this is that we can conjecture that Allen would call himself "Pro-life."
"Herman, you are truly a king among imbecils." -- Jamie
Would help, Jamie, before making such a claim, if you could correctly spell "imbeciles."
"Would I shoot someone for stealing a peach? Probably not, unless it was coming out of my refrigerator. Would I blame a store owner for shooting a shoplifter, no matter what their 'haul'? Nope." -- Jamie
Incredible, simply incredible.
One simple request, conservatives. If you favor the murder of shoplifters (or, for that matter, burglars), DON'T EVER CALL YOURSELVES CHRISTIANS, AND DON'T EVER CALL YOURSELVES "PRO-LIFE." Is that okay, conservatives? You see, these past several years the world has had to deal with too much Republican deceit already.
::HermanI went through the training and I just renewed my permit to carry a concealed weapon. I fully agree that law abiding citizens should have the means and the right under the law to defend themselves and their families. I also agree with Castle laws that give people immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability when they dispatch someone who has invaded their home.
However, I can't support extending such protection to those who shoot people in the back as they flee from them unless you know for a fact that they just did great bodily harm to someone. Back shooting is a cowardly act and should never be confused with self-defense. If pro-gun people don't condom such acts then we are rightfully associated with the chicken-hearted and the foolish people who do such things.
::Mac LorryHerman -
I'm saying that capital punishment is far less likely than compassion.
You're saying the opposite. I think you're wrong.
Have a nice day.
::JLawsonFrom Thomas Sowell:
Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of Bentley College deserves some sort of special prize for taking on the thankless task of talking sense on a subject where nonsense is deeply entrenched and fiercely dogmatic. In her recently published book, "Guns and Violence," Professor Malcolm examines the history of firearms, gun control laws and violent crime in England. What makes this more than an exercise in history is its relevance to current controversies over gun control in America.
Gun control zealots love to make highly selective international comparisons of gun ownership and murder rates. But Joyce Lee Malcolm points out some of the pitfalls in that approach. For example, the murder rate in New York City has been more than five times that of London for two centuries -- and during most of that time neither city had any gun control laws.
In 1911, New York state instituted one of the most severe gun control laws in the United States, while serious gun control laws did not begin in England until nearly a decade later. But New York City still continued to have far higher murder rates than London.
If we are serious about the role of guns and gun control as factors in differing rates of violence between countries, then we need to do what history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm does -- examine the history of guns and violence. In England, as she points out, over the centuries "violent crime continued to decline markedly at the very time that guns were becoming increasingly available."
England's Bill of Rights in 1688 was quite unambiguous that the right of a private individual to be armed was an individual right, independently of any collective right of militias. Guns were as freely available to Englishmen as to Americans, on into the early 20th century.
Nor was gun control in England a response to any firearms murder crisis. Over a period of three years near the end of the 19th century, "there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people," according to Professor Malcolm. "Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and only three were homicides -- an average of one a year."
The rise of the interventionist state in early 20th century England included efforts to restrict ownership of guns. After the First World War, gun control laws began restricting the possession of firearms. Then, after the Second World War, these restrictions grew more severe, eventually disarming the civilian population of England -- or at least the law-abiding part of it.
It was during this period of severe restrictions on owning firearms that crime rates in general, and the murder rate in particular, began to rise in England. "As the number of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen," Professor Malcolm points out.
In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s, there were more than a hundred times as many. In England, as in the United States, drastic crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens were accompanied by ever greater leniency to criminals. In both countries, this turned out to be a formula for disaster.
While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up more criminals.
In both countries, facts have no effect whatever on the dogmas of gun control zealots. The fact that most guns used to murder people in England were not legally purchased has no effect on their faith in gun control laws there, any more than faith in such laws here is affected by the fact that the gun used by the recent Beltway snipers was not purchased legally either.
In England as in America, sensational gun crimes have been seized upon and used politically to promote crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing about criminals. American zealots for the Brady bill say nothing about the fact that the man who shot James Brady and tried to assassinate President Reagan has been out walking the streets on furlough.
::DaveDMac Lorry, you watched too many cowboy movies man. Your whiny "no shooting in the back" sounds like something I heard in volleyball as a kid. On the battlefield, whether it's in my house, in my yard, at my neighbors, or in Iraq, the only "fair" fight is the one you win. In live-or-die, the only rule is kill the other and survive. Shoot the criminal in the buttocks, face, gut, whenever & wherever you can. You one dumb gunfighter, and obviously never been in combat. Your survival quotient is pretty low, like the dumbasses who tangled with All-American Joe Horn. Turning your back and running does not create a bullet-proof shield, you just die tired.
::twolaneflashTwolaneflash,
I served in the military and I can tell you this has nothing to do with combat. Only a fool would confuse the rules of civilian self-defense with the rules of war. The men Horn shot in the back were not armed and at least one of them never came at Horn. Horn's life was never in danger. Horn killed two men in broad daylight for nothing more than a property crime. The plainclothes detective who was parked in front of Horn's house said he feared that Horn would shoot him too and ducked down below the steering wheel. Horn was out of control and he's just dang lucky the detective didn't shoot him dead, which he could have justly done. Holding up Horn as some kind of all-American hero just diminishes us all. Even Horn now realizes that what he did was not heroic.
My idea of an all-American hero is Jeanne Assam. She FACED an ARMED serial killer and put him down with the pistol she has a concealed carry permit for. She knew the law, got the permit, trained with the firearm and exhibited true courage. It's examples like Jeanne Assam that strengthen the case for concealed carry and Castle laws.
If we hold up backshooters like Horn as heroes then some other ignorant person is going to think it's ok to shoot kids in the back as they run away from toilet papering his trees. When that happens even many otherwise pro-gun people will be calling for repeal of laws that seem to protect such cowardly acts.
::Mac LorryHomicide rate, Japan: around 0.5/100,000 people
What an amazing coincidence, Herman. Here is the U.S., the homicide rate among Japanese people is almost exactly the same.
::OregonMuseUrban culture encourages and glorifies "getting what's mine" by taking from others, and one has only to watch a prime time game show for a few episodes before hearing one of the contestants' supporters claiming that the contestant "deserves" the prize.
Like farmers demanding government subsidies rather than learning to do something economically viable in the global marketplace?
Jamie, when someone says they would kill someone for stealing a peach out of their refrigerator, they are seriously fucked in the head and completely un-Christian. (I'm not a Christian, nor am I a gun owner, but isn't a peach about the same price as some bullets? And how much does it cost to remove blood stains from hardwood flooring?)
Mac Lorry: the reason I get nervous with liberalized gun laws (meaning, unrestrictive gun laws) is that many of their advocates lack the measured tone and reasoning that you demonstrate while discussing the topic. When people delight in the murder of criminals guilty only of taking property, it shows a) a too-high regard for material things, and b) a too-low regard for human life.
OregonMuse: that's because Japanese (and Korean) people are taught that guns are bad, even though every Korean male goes through rigorous firearms training while in the military. There used to be an awful lot of violence in their society, based on lofty and insane moral principles that have been blunted (thankfully) by modernity. What ought to be done to encourage such a paradigm shift in mainstream American culture? It's a serious question. Banning certain video games or rap songs or movies or whatever would be wrong at face value; and it's not like gun-averse Japanese and Koreans don't play violent video games or watch violent films. Is it simply the case that one must accept that firearms and the American way of life are inextricably intertwined with one another; and should that not be taken as more than a little unsettling?
::hyperbolistOk, Herman, I'm going to make this as simple for you as I can.
I am Pro-Life. I believe in every individual's right, whether before or after birth, to be free from threats from others to their own life, liberty, and property.
I know the point is beyond your comprehension why the life of a criminal bent upon infringing upon my aforementioned rights isn't quite of the same value as the life of an unborn child, but the concept wasn't alien to Christ. He was familiar with the Jewish law that mandated death to anyone who injured a pregnant woman and caused the death of her unborn child.
You, sir, are a sad waste of skin, and it's a pity there are those who probably consider you the most intellectual person they know.
::JamieYou, sir, are a sad waste of skin, and it's a pity there are those who probably consider you the most intellectual person they know.
What the fuck are you talking about? You're a very stupid person, Jamie. Herman's point is fair: would Christ advocate the killing of someone for stealing a television set? Would he say "Hey, they were on your property, so, you know, don't bother turning the other cheek. Only do that in public places."?
Exercising your right to protect your property through lethal force seems a bit much when we're talking about replaceable material goods, non?
::hyperbolist"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Robert A. Heinlein
"If you outlaw guns, only the government will have guns." Karl Hess
Two modern reasons why we have the Second Amendment.
Thank you Alex, John and Jimmy.
::David in San DiegoThere used to be an awful lot of violence in their society, based on lofty and insane moral principles that have been blunted (thankfully) by modernity.
I hope you're not trying to suggest that this happened all by itself. The Japanese got the crap beat out of them in WWII by (ahem) the U.S. Funny you forgot to mention this. We pounded their cities to rubble, destroyed their army and navy, and and took their guns away. We deposed the military junta that ran the country with the moral principles you condemn as lofty and insane. Then we imposed upon them a Western-style constitution that reduced their military to near zero. So yeah, the Japanese were pacified. At gunpoint.
It took thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars in a world-wide war effort to accomplish the end result you're holding up for admiration.
Is it simply the case that one must accept that firearms and the American way of life are inextricably intertwined with one another; and should that not be taken as more than a little unsettling?
Nope, sorry, doesn't unsettle me in the least. In fact, I consider American firearms culture a source of strength. My country was born in war and conflict; my freedom, and my prosperity (which I celebrate today, July 4th) was bought by the blood of patriots, by honorable men whose shoes I am not worthy to tie. Unlike some other countries, mine does not have the luxury of wallowing in moral and intellectual decadence.
::OregonMuseWhether or not WW II ever happened, OregonMuse, Japan would not be a player in the global marketplace if they still killed their janitors with swords for missing a spot. Those principles, the violent honour-based samurai code, is what I was referring to; and not something that presently (or ever) exists in the U.S.
Do Koreans wallow in moral and intellectual decadence? No, they just eschew very dangerous tools as unimportant to their way of life. I acknowledge the differences between your culture and mine; or your culture and Japan's/Korea's, and don't think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. I don't know what to like about a culture, though, where many (perhaps most) people think it's fine to kill someone because they committed a crime involving their (or someone else's) personal property. When people stole my father's television set while he and my mother were in his room, 28 years ago, twice, he did not take his shotgun (not trigger locked at the time) from his closet and shoot the perpetrators in the back. He called the police; called his insurance company; and can still say, to this day, that he has never killed anybody. That's something I think most people (with exceptions--soldiers fighting just wars, most notably) should want to be able to say to themselves, isn't it?
::hyperbolistI am curious about how the ACLU will react to Heller. They have always maintained the "collective right" position. My guess is they will just say the ruling was wrong and ignore gun rights cases.
Whether or not WW II ever happened, OregonMuse, Japan would not be a player in the global marketplace if they still killed their janitors with swords for missing a spot.
Which blissfully ignores my entire point. Let me try again: the main reason the Japanese are a major player in the global market today is because they got the crap kicked out of them in WWII. It took major bloodshed to get them to figure out that the honor/shame schtick doesn't cut it, especially against modern (i.e. Western) military power.
They were dragged kicking and screaming into modernity by the force of superior arms. That's an historical fact. Were it not for American arms, they might still be killing their janitors for trivial infractions.
It is idle speculation to suppose, if that's what you're doing, that Japan would have abandoned its centuries-old culture on its own.
Do Koreans wallow in moral and intellectual decadence?
I wasn't referring to the Koreans or the Japanese.
No, they just eschew very dangerous tools as unimportant to their way of life.
Fine. But do you know why they can do this? Because they have someone else (i.e. the U.S.) to fight their wars for them. SEATO, anyone?
That's one of the deals we gave (imposed, actually) the Japanese after WWII, to wit: "yeah, we're going to gut your military down to nothing, but that's not going to be a problem because your security will be guaranteed by the United States military."
That deal has held, pretty much, till this day.
And, I'd be curious to see how long this "firearms are superfluous" view would last if divisions of the North Korean army started pouring across the border, and President Obama (or McCain, for that matter) just sat on his hands.
I don't know what to like about a culture, though, where many (perhaps most) people think it's fine to kill someone because they committed a crime involving their (or someone else's) personal property.
Be careful, though, that you're not indulging in a bit of ex post facto analysis. Trying to determine whether the criminals you see breaking into your neighbor's house are only after property or something else is difficult to determine at the time it is happening.
This is why I give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Horn, even though there are legitimate questions that can be raised about this particular shooting. I am not celebrating that some guy got shot in the back.
But the view that Joe Horn is a bad guy who killed a man over a TV set is artfully dismantled by DJ Drummond here.
When people stole my father's television set while he and my mother were in his room, 28 years ago, twice, he did not take his shotgun (not trigger locked at the time) from his closet and shoot the perpetrators in the back. He called the police; called his insurance company...
Yes, and there are times when this course of action is completely appropriate. Given the situation, I would have probably done the same as your father, and thanked God later that I didn't have to kill anyone. However, if we ever get to the point where the only legally permissible remedy to a home invasion is to fill out a form, then the criminals will have won.
::OregonMusehyperbolist, stupid I may be, but Jesus didn't halt the crucifixion of thieves on either side of him.
Thieves. That means they stole material goods.
He drove the crooked moneychangers from the temple with a whip. Sounds like He wasn't completely opposed to physical violence after all, no?
You and Herman have fun contemplating those items.
I truly can respect your position that you wouldn't threaten physical harm to anyone who attempts to steal your possessions. That's commendable, I suppose. The same criminal, however, will not be met with such pacifism if they attempt to acquire my goods. Do your neighbors know that you won't do anything to protect their goods, though?
::JamieRef #13. First, I am not a conservative, nor am I a bleeding heart liberal. I listen to my own music. If a woman feels that she wants to have an abortion, IMO that is her BUSINESS, not mine, nor should it be yours, or anyone else's.
I have no problem if you hate firearms, that is your right, same as it's my right to carry one. And yes, since some colleges have signs saying it's a gun free zone, then so should every anti-gun person out there.
And if you were my neighbor, with a gun free zone sign in your yard, and some punk decided to break in and rob, rape, kill and plunder your place, well I would just call 911. That way I have done my civic duty.
But if the same punk decides to break into my house, well he has to ask himself if my property is worth his life. It was my, not the punks, blood, sweat, tears, ect. to be able to have the money to purchase said property.
Which one of the ten commandants says "thou shall not steal?" Some people make their living by stealing from honest hard working people.
If you desire to be a victim to that, hey, it's your right to do so. It's also my right not to be a victim, and if a neighbor asks me to watch his property while he is on vacation, I will treat that property like my own.
And about the GOP deceit, you are correct, but the DEMO's are not different. AND I did not wish rape and murder on anyone. I made a simple statement that you anti-gun nuts are inviting that trouble upon yourself's. So the question is: DO YOU HAVE THE BALLS TO PUT A GUN FREE ZONE IN YOUR YARD?
Herman, using your logic, I could just as easily blame the suicide rate in Japan on their lack of guns, since it is so much higher than the rate in the USA. But that is a specious argument.
Anyway, there is also a matter of how different countries report their deaths. In Japan, a murder-suicide is reported as a suicide. So when Hoshi kills his wife and then opens his own belly, Japan puts two points in the suicide column.
Another tidbit, in 1900 when there almost no US restrictions on hand guns, and pistols and rifles could be bought via mail order, the homicide rate was 1.2.
How about Switzerland? Adult males, by law and with few exemptions (clergy, invalids etc) have a firearm in their homes. Low homicide rate. Ditto for Israel. But unlike Israel (6.5), Switzerland has as shockingly high suicide rate (21.4).
the Socialist Paradise of Cuba, no bastion of gun ownership she, exceeds the US in both homicide and suicide. And their numbers only count citizen on citizen crime, not Castro's goon squads.
You know, at the rate they are going, England may very well prove to be the perfect little petri dish for the entire anti-rights, anti-self-defense, anti-firearms, hoplophobic mentality to play out to its ultimate, messy, and disastrous end. That said, I do feel massively sorry for the law-abiding citizens in the country who are now stripped of their ability and legal standing to defend themselves, their families, and their property... but, at the same time, they allowed the government to walk them down this path, and, in some cases, they demanded it.
And while Heller is a massive victory for those who believe in the most basic human right of self-perpetuation, do not think we are so separated from England in this aspect... As this thread alone has indicated, many, many people would have us trod down the same bloody path leading to the eventual outcome where the criminals own the country, and no citizens are willing to help each other.
Case in point: The two-year-old beaten to death by his father on the side of the road, as they both were surrounded by bystanders. Here in America.
I do agree with the mentality that hoplophobes, gun-grabbers, and anti-firearms folks should put up "GUN FREE ZONE" signs in their own yards, however... I mean, those signs are working so well at schools and colleges around the country, along with malls and other public areas, one can only imagine the amount of good those signs would do for their own homes. Of course, you and I both know no gun-grabber would actually put up that sign, because, somewhere back in the deep recesses of their minds, they understand that such a sign is simply inviting an unlawful, armed person to cause them harm. Sure, they will never admit that out loud (how could they? It would contradict everything they have ever stood for!), but the only other alternative is a severe case of mental illness, and I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.
And on a semi-related note,
I am curious about how the ACLU will react to Heller. They have always maintained the "collective right" position. My guess is they will just say the ruling was wrong and ignore gun rights cases.
The ACLU has already come out with their stance on their weblog. They have held, and continue to hold, the Second Amendment right as a "collective" one, and disagree with the Supreme Court ruling. They were, however, unwilling to explain just what that disagreement entails...
::LinogeMore wild and crazy news from around the Sunshine State.
The scarlet letter lives. Jacksonville man has the words 'wife beater' carved into his chest.
Happy meal. Man found with 55 grams of cocaine in a McDonald's bag.
I feel faint. Palm Beach Post columnist Jac VerSteeg thinks the US Supreme Court was wrong in banning the death penalty for child rapists..
Maybe he should pick Fuschia instead. Man breaks into woman's home and then flees but not before putting on one of the homeowner's blue shorts.
Assault with a deadly kielbasa. Central Florida man hits his mother with a Polish sausage.
He ought to be in pictures. Walmart security guard chases gets struck over the head with a 19-inch television set as he attempts to prevent a theft.
What drugs will do to your brain. First a crackhead assaults a woman, then ten minutes later returns to the scene of the crime to tell police, 'I did it'.
Listen to me carefully or Fluffy will die. Wellington woman steals neighbor's cat in order to get her dog back.
Hat tip- SFDB
Today's winner is Thomas Rolle. He gets the award for the following.
TAMPA, FL -- Tampa police say robbery suspect Thomas Rolle probably ought to to find a new line of work because he's not a very observant crook.Rob a wheelchair bound man within a few feet of law enforcement officer is all it takes to make Thomas Rolle today's Knucklehead of the Day.Police say Rolle saw an easy mark to rob outside Lee's Grocery on Central Avenue, a 68 year old man in a wheelchair. But Rolle apparently didn't see the police car parked a few feet away.
According to a police report, Rolle robbed the wheelchair bound man in broad daylight right in front of two Tampa police officers. The report adds, "The suspect robbed the victim by snatching money from his front left shirt pocket. During the robbery, Officer B. Bishop and MPO J. Dausch observed the confrontation and exited their vehicle. The suspect attempted to flee at which time he was immediately taken into custody.
At times you can chuckle about the stupidity of these criminals.
This stupidity, coupled with say with a desire for another hit of drugs is what leads them into robbing a convenience store at midnight, knowing there is no more than twenty dollars in the till, shooting and/or killing the clerk, all the while being captured on video.
Stupid, yes, potentially very dangerous; that is also a yes.
::Eneils BaileyJay and I have been bantering the 'Joe Horn' case, discussing various aspects of it and what it means to the greater society. Along the way, Jay mentioned the concept of 'duty to retreat'. The concept is based on the idea that when faced with an aggressor, a person has a moral duty to avoid confrontation, to give up ground and back away. That when a criminal gets it in his head that he wants to take something, we should just let him do so. That if he hurts someone, we should not try to prevent it. That the most we are allowed to do, is to stay out of the way, and if we feel guilty about doing nothing we can call the police later on and they will file a report about it.
This concept frankly strikes me as obscene, but more to the point, it is un-American. Concepts like duty to retreat seem to be very much how Liberals see the world. Such a concept explains how they can see Iraq's freedom from Saddam Hussein as a bad thing - we should not have taken him down, you see, it was somehow "wrong" to free millions of innocent Iraqis from a mad dictator. Same thing in Afghanistan; the Left would argue that even an evil usurping group like the Taliban somehow constituted a 'sovereign government', which we were wrong to confront and remove, even though they protected and supported Al Qaeda and the monsters who committed 9/11's horrors (for which the Left also blames America - we should not have gone outside our borders, you see, should not have promoted business anywhere in foreign lands, even where we were invited, should not have raised living standards and therefore expectations in third world countries, etc.). We see it in Europe now, where governments facing seditious thugs trying to tear apart their societies, actually apologize to the monsters and tell the victims not to make trouble. The established traditions and cultures of more than a thousand years are being dismantled, by the very governments which should be defending them, because those governments fear confrontation. It is a worse offense than cowardice, because a coward only shames his own name; the proponents of this concept would coerce a general condition of fear and self-loathing, all in the name of appeasement.
But I said this concept is un-American. Some who hate President Bush for protecting the nation, have claimed that his decisions and directives have hurt our standing in the world. I say rather the opposite, that the iron in his spine makes us taller in the view of everyone else. More and more nations copy the American model, in government, in business, and in culture. And what's more, President Bush is well in line with American tradition on that point. It is important to note that our nation was born in blood, though not a fight we wanted to have. When the British took to not only occupying major American towns in order to enforce its tax decrees, but quartering troops in American homes, they sparked a general rebellion which grew to drive a new nation into being. When the Barbary pirates raided our vessels and demanded tribute, we did not answer long with money, but soon replied with naval gunnery. The War of 1812 may well have been foolish, but by the time it was over, Europe knew better than to dictate terms to us. When we went to war with Spain over Cuba and the Philippines, we did not settle for a diplomatic victory, but removed Spain from those countries. And to address our attitude in World War 2 towards our enemies, one need only consider any of the public statements made by General Patton or Admiral Halsey. Only when we let ourselves get talked into considering our missions to have limits, do we lose wars. When we do whatever is necessary to win, we win easily.
This does not mean that war without restraint is always the most desirable, but it does mean that when we are attacked, we are right to answer in full force. When our objective protects our homeland, we are right to put our goals ahead of other nations'. Our friends must ever be aware that we will accomplish our missions, and our enemies must be made to know that there is no greater foolishness than to provoke our wrath. Mister Obama is very much wrong on that point - there must indeed be preconditions to any meeting with an adversary, the chief being that our enemies must know that they cannot hope to defeat us, that any attack against us will be answered, fully but in such time and manner as suits our plans, no one else.
Americans do not retreat.
The "duty to retreat" was trumpted as a means to avoid confrontations that would lead to injuries. Unfortunately, it became an absolute and there is no way of knowing how many were injured, maimed or killed following that dictum. Seems common sense was thrown out the window when some twit came up with that one.
When the spate of school shooting occurred, I told my kids that their life was precious and that I expected them to fight for it. The last thing I wanted them to do is be passive and just let it happen. Kick, bite, throw whatever is at hand, beat 'em to death with a ruler, but don't give up and submit. There was a sentence that caught my eye after the Virginia Tech shootings. One of the victims was pointing out where he'd been wounded. He said "That's the desk I chose to die under". Whether he intended or not, the wording indicated (to me) it was not the location (place) he chose, it was the fact he chose to die.
Crooks have grown up on the idea that citizens will retreat passively, they've staked their "careers" on it. When the good finally realize they outnumber the misfits and don't have to take their shit things will change.
::GarandFanI think the duty to retreat doctrine began its not fast enough decline to death on Flight 93. The first 2 planes followed duty to retreat, and we lost the WTC, Flight 93 acted, and (very sadly) died preventing some other target from being hit.
::KristianAre you by any chance a liberal? Your rant is based on feelings an an ingnorance of underlying facts.
Before an individual uses DEADLY FORCE against a criminal, he has a duty to retreat under certain circumstances. If the crook 1) isn't inside your house, 2) isn't threatening you or someone else, or is not advancing toward you, you have a "duty to retreat" before blowing him away. You also can't use deadly force against 1) a fleeing crook, or 2) one that has stolen property from you and is outside absconding.
Make whatever points you want, but your anaolgy to "duty to retreat" is misplaced.
::aircavConcepts like duty to retreat seem to be very much how Liberals see the world. Such a concept explains how they can see Iraq's freedom from Saddam Hussein as a bad thing - we should not have taken him down, you see, it was somehow "wrong" to free millions of innocent Iraqis from a mad dictator. Same thing in Afghanistan; the Left would argue that even an evil usurping group like the Taliban somehow constituted a 'sovereign government',
You are proceeding from the false assumption the Left doesn't privately envy Tyrannical rule despite how much they love to decry it in their political opponents.
So they see tyrannical regimes as quite legitimate. Perhaps even more legitimate than their own.
::jpm100aircav, your pretend law is very amusing, but here in the real world I catch such vapid attempts pretty quick.
No, I am not a Liberal. But you appear to me to be a liar.
::DJ DrummondAircav;
Just to muddy the waters, any citizen has the right to make an arrest when a crime is committed in their presence. Along with that right is the authority to use 'reasonable force' to affect that arrest. Then it comes down to the facts in each individual case. You probably won't get away with shooting someone fleeing a property crime. Change that crime to rape or serious assault and you have a completely different case.
#3--I believe you are confusing the terms "duty to retreat" and "use of deadly force" and using them interchangeably. They are not the same. Duty to retreat is the notion that you should not defend your property, family, rights or life in the presence of a threat. Use of deadly force is using force to permanently incapacitate a person.
There is no situation in which you should be under a duty to retreat--you may choose to retreat if your determine that is your best option but are not and should never be under any obligation to retreat.
You have an arguable point that there may be situations that deadly force is not necessary, but that is best left to those in the dangerous situations, not armchair quarterbacks like you or me or, worse, lawyers. What if an unarmed man who just burgled your home is running away, outside your house, but going to his car to get a gun? And how can you know if he has a gun in his car? His waistband? What if you surprised him and he wants you to think he's unarmed so you'll drop your guard and give him an opportunity to take you out with a hidden weapon?
The use of deadly force is serious--those that use it can reasonably expect to have their decision looked at by a grand jury. However, extreme situations do not easily lend themselves to hard-and-fast rules, which is why I think juries tend to give the benefit of the doubt to those who exercise their right to defend themselves under duress.
::JoelI disagree completely. Progressives are not committed to retreating, or not fighting for what they believe in.
An example would be the palestinians. Never a peep of protest when a splodeydope self ignites and kills a bunch of innocent israeli children.
The truth is they dont believe in america, you can ask them sometime what they think America stands for.
Who would fight for a country that represents racism, jingoism, and war?
And as Obama's buddies have demonstrated, they will fight, bomb, and kill americans, Just ask Ayers.
to quote someone wiser than i: "They arent anti-war, they are actually on the other side"
-lee
+++
President Iron Spine spent the afternoon watching tee ball. Fun!
::hyperbolist"the Left would argue that even an evil usurping group like the Taliban somehow constituted a 'sovereign government', which we were wrong to confront and remove, even though they protected and supported Al Qaeda and the monsters who committed 9/11's horrors."
Geez, DJ, I was starting to worry there for a while. You were starting to sound lucid and somewhat reasonable. Good to see you are back to you extreme ignorance and buffoonery. Show me a quote from a prominent liberal stating that we should not go into Afghanistan. Not some extreme fringe blogger, but a prominent Democrat. You certainly have the credibility to talk about ultra-right-wing viewpoints, but when you spout off about what liberals think you demonstrate your extreme ignorance.
::maxComing from you max, your insults just show I was on target. Thanks!
::DJ DrummondMAX,
Certainly not surprising that the left has trouble with those "ultra right-wing viewpoints", like: believing it legitimate to defend one's life and property with the use of deadly force; knowing it to be just and heroic to free 40 million people in two nations from the grip of tyranical lunacy; refusing to take it seriously when third rate nations like France denegrate and presume to dictate policy to the United States.
::OLDPUPPYMAXI would shoot a fleeing burglar in the back. You absolutely should, and would be a fool not to.
You leave him alive, he'll come back another time and this time you might not get to your gun before he gets to you. This concept is explored endlessly and with relish in B-horror movies where the heroine shoots the villain and then runs away before making sure he is really, truly dead.
Empty the clip. Then cut his head off if the clip failed to do so.
Some who hate President Bush for protecting the nation, have claimed that his decisions and directives have hurt our standing in the world.
We hate Bush for making the world less secure, not protecting the nation.
Are such a dolt as to beleive that liberals are going saying we hate Bush for protecting us?
::DaveDave, a simple refresher in basic Engish grammar would do your posts a world of good.
As for your lying about Bush, well, for that you will need the services of a competent psychologist ...
::DJ DrummondThis does not mean that war without restraint is always the most desirable, but it does mean that when we are attacked, we are right to answer in full force.
IRAQ DIDN'T ATTACK US
::DaveDJ,
How did I lie about Bush?
::DaveDJ,
If anyone should be accused of dis-honesty its you for perpetuating the myth that Iraq was involved in 9-11.
"This does not mean that war without restraint is always the most desirable, but it does mean that when we are attacked, we are right to answer in full force."
::DaveClever evasion DJ, but I'm not going to let you off quite that easily. I know you don't have anything to back up your claims, but I'll ask again. Do you have even one quote from a prominent American liberal stating that we should not invade Afghanistan?
And speaking of Afghanistan and the perpetrators of 911, how's your buddy Bush doing at bringing them to justice? Seems to me he ran away to Iraq before taking care of business in Afghanistan. Oh, and guess what? The Taliban is back. Heckuva job, Bushie.
Also, before you bust someone else's chops over grammar, maybe you should try using spellcheck.
::maxDave and Max are in full squeal mode, I see.
Almost as good as fireworks!
::DJ DrummondDJ,
Scowcroft, a former Air Force general and national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush disagrees with you.
He has stated that the next president should absolutely talk with leaders such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Snocroft is pretty smart. In 2002 he correctly predicted "Don't Attack Saddam...could turn the whole region into a cauldron and thus destroy the war on terrorism"
Do you also think Scowcroft ascribes to your ridiculus notion of "Duty to Retreat"?
::DaveDJ,
Richard Armitage, Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State disagrees with you.
He said the Bush administration should conduct direct nuclear negotiations with Iran
-Financial Times APril 13, 2006
Do you also think Richard Armitage ascribes to your ridiculus notion of "Duty to Retreat"?
::DaveDJ,
Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations disagrees with you.
He says, "Given these potential high costs, Washington should be searching harder for a diplomatic alternative, one that entail direct US talks with Iran"
Do you also think Richard N. Haass ascribes to your ridiculus notion of "Duty to Retreat"?
::DaveDJ,
Dennis Ross, director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H.W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Clinton disagrees with you.
He supports talking with Iran.
Do you also think Dennis Ross ascribes to your ridiculus notion of "Duty to Retreat"?
::DaveDJ,
Chuck Hagel disagrees with you,
"As we consider the regional context of stability and security in Iraq, there is another issue that we must deal with--a relationship between the United States and Iran. The fact that our two governments cannot--or will not--sit down to exchange views must end. Iran is a regional power; it has major influence in Iraq and throughout the Gulf region. Its support of terrorist organizations and the threat it poses to Israel is all the more reason that the U.S. must engage Iran. Any lasting solution to Iran's nuclear weapons program will also require the United States' direct discussions with Iran. The United States is capable of engaging Iran in direct dialogue without sacrificing any of its interests or objectives. As a start, we should have direct discussions with Iran on the margins of any regional security conference on Iraq, as we did with Iran in the case of Afghanistan."
Do you also think Chuck Hagel ascribes to your ridiculus notion of "Duty to Retreat"?
DJ,
You have a tendancy of making up bizarre explantions for the behavior of people you disagree with. Your concept of Duty of Retreat is laughable.
::DaveDave:
Hahahahahaha! "The United States is capable of engaging Iran in direct dialogue without sacrificing any of its interests or objectives."
Engage to what end? They've already stated their position and are suffering sanctions because of it. Has that 'moved' them?
If the Iranians "engage" for any reason it will be to stall for time.
After they acquire a nuke, what do you propose then Dave? Will we then have 'a duty to retreat'?
::GarandFanDJ,
Your posterboy, aircav, isn't in nor from
Texas. Remind him of Mr.Horn.
Happy 4th to you.
That's what I thought, DJ. Let me know when you graduate the 8th grade.
In a world of predators, deadly force is an absolute deterrent to recidivism. Thank you, Mr. Horn for being your brother's keeper when men came to do him evil. Burglars take from their victim all that has value, which can include the victim's life. Burglars should all fear that the neighbors may gut them with a 12 gauge, even if the cable guy gets challenged by granny with a long-gun now and again.
My gun law would be that you have to tie a white woolen flag on your place if you do not have one. We don't want the wolves to have trouble finding the wooly-headed sheep, since it saves the rest of us the trouble of feeding the wolves and of fleecing the sheep.
::twolaneflashmax, I did not answer because
a) unlike you, I had better things to do than spend all afternoon trying to impress myself, and
b) your list of left-leaning ego-feeders was laughable in any sense of credibility. I mean really, you expect a Conservative to be impressed by you dropping names like Armitage and Hagel? By the State Department, of all agencies? Please.
I wanted to see you present a cogent argument, something that really addressed the issue. I am only answering you out of sense of pity for your obvious desire for attention.
Your reference to the 8th grade, by the way, reminds me to encourage you to do your best, and one day you too can graduate from Middle School. As I work towards my MBA and CPA license, I try to recall how difficult it is for folks whose mental capacity is as obviously constrained as your own, and for that you truly have my sympathy.
::DJ DrummondI would love to hear how Bush has protected America.
Most low information sub-missives, like the Wizbangers, have an absolute infantile view of "the war on terror".
They think that Bin Laden planned the 9-11 attacks to strike a destructive blow against America. A series of murders on our soil.
This attitude reflects the bumper sticker mentality of the right and regurgitates the misinformation from such geniuses as Hannity and Limbaugh.
The 9-11 attacks were a TRIGGER to set Bin Ladens plan into motion.
Bush responded to a degree that even Bin Laden underestimated.
Each and every goal Bin Laden had wished Bush fulfilled with vigor.
Oil at 100 a barrel was the goal, protracted draining conflict, Bush responded on TWO FRONTS. Weaken the dollar, weaken the bond with our allies [where is the coalition of the willing], break the military[ 4 tours], drain the coffers, 12 billion a month...........on and on and on.
Wow Dr Lava, so in other words, BinLaden is a fucking genius. Sure he is. AQ's own people say they got their asses kicked. Recruitment is down, Afganistan is no longer a safe sancturary.
Dr Lava reminds me of Grant's admonition to his generals. Roughly, 'Don't worry about what Lee will do to us, concentrate on what we'll do to Lee'.
"I would love to hear how Bush has protected America." Uh, anymore buildings blown up by hijacked jets? Any US warships blown up? Any more US embassies blown up?
Yeah, come back now with all the death and destruction in Iraq....
::GarandFanBefore discussing the USA's involvement in Iraq, it would be helpful to first read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and the Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
The first act by Congress, which was passed before 9/11, made the removal of Saddam Hussein from power the official policy the of the USA.
The second act by Congress does not say that Iraq was directly involved with 9/11; however, the act does say the following:
"Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;"
::Dodo David"duty to retreat" lmao ....equals---------
BANG BANG BANG -TWO shots to the torso, one head shot..(preferably with a .357 magnum) then.. YELL "STOP or I'LL SHOOT!"
DEAD men tell NO tales...
::Knightbrigade
GarandFan
I don't think Bin Laden is that much of a genius as he is a deeply aware of history. He has a keen knowledge of our civil war and revolutionary war. Peter Bergen writes about his conversations with Bin Laden in the late 80's where he describes using the "Soviet" playbook when he declared war on America. Bleed it dry.
You don't seem to understand that Bin Laden is achieving his main goals without wasting his resources.
::dr lavaI have more than a little trouble following dr lava's logic. It may be true that Bin Laden is not wasting his resources, but I doubt it. His organization has lost in Iraq, antagonized a lot of Muslims, lost face thereby harming his recruiting efforts, has seen his financial network implode, is living in caves in the wilds of Pakistan, has limited to no training facilities, is under attack from Predator drones, is unable to use a cell phone, but rely on couriers, and is facing attack from Pakistan in the East.
I suppose that could be called not "wasting his resources", but seems more like watching his resources dwindle away. I guess you have to be a liberal to argue Bin Laden is the better off for Bush's response simply because he has not "wasted his resources".
Rick
::Rick CairdShortly after 9/11 and before the invasion of Afghan