In the Comments, Bantam juxtaposed a couple of recent articles, so I'll run with his lead.
First, President Barack Obama penned an Op-Ed for the Arizona Daily Star calling for a calm, rational discussion of the need for more gun control:
by Barack Obama
It's been more than two months since the tragedy in Tucson stunned the nation. It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.
But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun. ...
But since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence. ... I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen. ... I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.
In contrast, from today's New York Times:
Washington in Fierce Debate on Arming Libyan Rebels
Posts
52 comments:
Perhaps we could compromise and send young Loughner to Libya.
uh... this one is a bit of stretch, you can't compare the two situations...
really, u can't.
hmmmmmmmmm
One of the memes mentions Steve Sailer by name.
http://www.quickmeme.com/OtherLibyanGunner/
I could make a joke about 'arms', but that would most decidedly not be funny (discretion advised).
This guy appears to need a prayer mat. Other than than that, it looks like he has everything already.
OT
Also not from The Onion...
Bloomberg: Wal-Mart Discrimination Case Reveals Gender Gap at High Court
From the article:
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan all voiced at least qualified support yesterday for the class-action suit, which claims women across the country were victimized by Wal-Mart’s practice of letting local managers make subjective decisions about pay and promotions.
You know, I've always felt my own career was unfairly disadvantaged by too many "subjective decisions about pay and promotions". So I'm glad to see this being seconded at the highest levels.
We have to do away with subjectivity in this context. In fact, I think all hiring and promotion ought to be based on objective merit alone. We can start with, eg, police and firefighters.
Perhaps we need to go further and look at managers making decisions at all.
And if you (subjectively) don't agree, this is more proof of the proposition.
No, not from the Onion. Its pretty much par from the course from the left to have no problems with hypocrisy and double standards when its useful to them.
So did Hugh Jackman join the Libyan rebels? Or was it some other non-American actor in American movies I haven't seen but I've seen his face but not sure the name and he's too old to be in a werewolf, zombie, vampire movie/tv show, except for that Swedish?English?Norwegian? Australian guy from New Zealand.
"First, President Barack Obama penned an Op-Ed..."
What was wrong with "President Obama's speech writers have penned an Op-Ed..."
That would be needlessly verbose. The writings of public persons are usually the result of a collaboration and writing process that may only be finally approved by the public person.
You may as well wax about "President Obama's team, after long hours of brainstorming, drafting, revision, and contacting the Arizona Daily Star to have it published on advantageous conditions, an Op-Ed has been published."
Then again, you don't know what happened at all. He may have drafted it himself.
So we buy back guns from American gangbangers, and sell or give them to Libyan bandits/guerillas? I smell a business opportunity for Effraim Diveroli here!
More baloney from Obama. The bodies were barely carried away in Tucson when lefty partisans started trying to pin it all on somebody else. And why does Obama mention that the shooter was "unfit" to enter the military when he himself would never deign to join up? I guess it was more comfortable to sit in Wright's church and listen to anti-white sermons for twenty years than to sign up.
The administration feels justified in using force to prevent Khadafi from using violence against that portion of his population that has taken up arms against him.
Does anyone care to hazard a guess as to whether it's now the policy of the US government to forswear the use of violence against elements in this country that might one day take up arms against their government. Or is it that our president reserves to himself the right to determine which aspirations are legitimate?
I always find it jarring that our presidents--George W. Bush as well as Obama--speak so fervently about democracy, but do not themselves hesitate to ram through policies against the expressed will of the people, be it immigration amnesty or Obamacare. In those cases, they say, "I don't govern based on polls."
Couldn't Khadafi and Mubarak say the same?
Take careful note of how things in Libya, because they are the face of Civil War II.
Do not let yourself be disarmed.
It's been more than two months since the tragedy in Tucson stunned the nation. It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.
Like much of Obama speeches, this sounds nice but is completely, obviously and intentionally false.
It was the mainstream media and politicians that immediately saw blood on the hands of anyone to the right of them for creating a "culture of hate".
They incessantly and variously attacked the Tea Party, Republicans, gun owners, etc. The main official fabrication was that this shooting was directly a result of immigration enforcement advocates and inevitable outcome of Arizona SB370. Also, the leftists just wanted the shooter to fit the typical angry white Christians boogieman so undercurrents of antisemitism were put forth.
No doubt it took only a day or so to discover the shooter was nothing like what the MSM initially claimed. Still, the media propagandized their story for a few weeks until, despite their obstruction, it came out the shooter was just a mentally unbalanced anti-establishment Jewish
druggie. Loughner specifically shot Giffords for being too conservative as a "blue dog democrat" and "welled up at the sight of" GW Bush.
Hey, but why waste a tragedy?
I challenge all of you to name a single Founding Father who would recognize a Barack Hussein Obama's right to bear arms. His thirteen generations of American ancestry notwithstanding...
And now they seem to be making it up as they go.
From Black Narcissus's editorial: "It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain."
We did? Websites on the right like Michelle Malkin's offered prayers for the victims.
Horror at Tuscon.
Meanwhile, the left leapt at the opportunity to blame the right for the shootings and tried to implicate American Renaissance. (Links included in the Malkin link--not all are SFW.)
This is not the writing of a mere fantasist but of an outright (and left-wing) fabulist. Has Jayson Blair become one of Obama's ghost writers? It wouldn't surprise me.
The war is pointless if the rebels aren't armed (in for a penny, in for a pound.
"I challenge all of you to name a single Founding Father who would recognize a Barack Hussein Obama's right to bear arms. His thirteen generations of American ancestry notwithstanding..."
I challenge all of you to name a single Founding Father who would recognize a Barack Hussein Obama's America. His thirteen generations of American ancestry notwithstanding...
@DYork, I think that is actually Vlade Divac, retired Serbian NBA player in the picture :-)
Joe
Is this the ultimate "who? whom?"
"Eh" brought up WalMart, which was off-topic, but watch me bring it back on-:
My nearest WalMart took the place of a defunct Kmart in what's now the edge of the 'hood. (But which will probably gentrify when they restore the streetcars as so-called "light rail" in a couple years.)
They were going to sell guns just as they do at every other WalMart, at least in the US. But three members of the city council wrote them a letter asking/pleading/demanding/veiledly threatening them not to. So now they don't.
So WalMart is now racially profiling at the request of the city council!
"I challenge all of you to name a single Founding Father who would recognize a Barack Hussein Obama's America."
Why is it that you people think things were so incredibly wonderful, even for white people, back in 1832?
There is a good reason things have changed; people were unsatisfied with the status quo so they made adjustments.
Also, spread democracy to the Arab world but the hell with democratic process for war over here.
One thing about these new allies of ours is they'll need plenty of fresh ammunition for cultural purposes, ie, to discharge into the air bandido style every time they get the impulse.
Gilbert Pinfold.
"There is a good reason things have changed; people were unsatisfied with the status quo so they made adjustments."
Yes.. people. Who might those be?
The past was great, the future will be bleak, I think this is incontrovertible.
Reg Caesar: There were free blacks in America at the time of the founding fathers. I've never heard of any laws restricting their ownership of guns, but I don't know whether they existed.
From today's news, we're at least going to arm Libyan rebels, and we've got CIA guys on the ground coordinating with them. (I suppose they would have once been called "military advisors.") I wonder what the probability is that we will end up with a significant number of soldiers on the ground in Libya. Now that the administration has committed to the intervention, I don't think there's any way it can let the intervention fail, politically. So if we need to put US soldiers on the ground to save the rebels, I suppose that's just what we'll do.
Thank you. This is beautiful, just beautiful.
To make it perfect Barry'O'll need to figure out a way to get our new allies, with guns, over here.
No, not from the Onion. Its pretty much par from the course from the left to have no problems with hypocrisy and double standards when its useful to them.
Indeed, though I'd add that it's also par for them to exhibit total, willful negligence vis-a-vis discovering the hypocrisy, double standards, and contradictions. In short, they need their hypocrisy, double standards, and contradictions.
Steve,
Thank You.
More baloney from Obama.
Yeah, a Clintonesque lie; sure, most Americans were reasonable about the whole thing. Most Americans don't have megaphones, though, and don't count in this context.
There is a good reason things have changed; people were unsatisfied with the status quo so they made adjustments.
Thank you, Obi-Wan.
Separate places in the brain, both based on the emotional rather than logical attachment to the issues.
It explains half of conservatism and all of liberalism.
Why is it that you people think things were so incredibly wonderful, even for white people, back in 1832?
There is a good reason things have changed; people were unsatisfied with the status quo so they made adjustments.
As usual, I'm willing to actually discuss the matter if you deign to respond.
What do you have on your mind that sucked about 1832 (IN CONTEXT), relative to today?
DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY --
Taking the side of any armed mob anywhere in the world, at unlimited cost. And, if necessary, providing the arms.
DEFINITION OF ANYWHERE --
Within missile-range of Israel.
Why not arm the rebels with pepper spray and tasers?
There was a better case for bombing the rebellion-crushing Lincoln than there is for bombing the rebellion-crushing Gadhafi.
Not only did Lincoln kill far more of his own countrymen than Gadhafi ever could, but also the Libyan rebels represent something worse than what the Confederates represented. The Libyan rebels' natural allegiance is with the Muslim Brotherhood *, which means sharia law. And sharia law anywhere is mostly less beneficent than was slavery as practiced in North America.
Yet the American Establishment revers Lincoln, and abominates Gadhafi. It gives a whole new level of meaning to "oily."
(* Average IQ in Libya is 84. Source: Lynn and Vanhanen.)
'Why is it that you people think things were so incredibly wonderful, even for white people, back in 1832?'
Because it was possible for a white man to earn a living, own land, and start a family back then. (Note that "earning a living" probably meant "working on his own farm" rather than "working at a soul-destroying ass-kissing salaried job.")
It is much more difficult for a white man to do the same now.
Steve, you're way too pessimist; what could possibly go wrong with arming rebels?
Anon:
How much of that is simply the closing of the frontier? That was more a matter of running out of unclaimed (except for Indians) land than political change.
Also, I think it would be very hard to get many Americans today to accept the standard of living of a homestead on the frontier today. That wouldn't look like opportunity and prosperity, it would look like godawful grinding rural poverty--living in a shack with no water or electricity, and a fireplace, axe, and nearby trees to heat you in some very cold winters. It looked like prosperity to homesteaders because they were used to worse, sort of like working in a restaurant kitchen in the us looks like prosperity to a Mexican campesino.
Bantam said...Steve, you're way too pessimist; what could possibly go wrong with arming rebels?
This message links to a photo of Reagan sitting with mujahadeen, of whom it claims he said, “These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.”
Though the photo is authentic, that quote referred to the Contras. If he ever said it about the mujahadeen I'd like to see a contemporary source, not something from the last two years. News archive searches turn up nothing.
"What do you have on your mind that sucked about 1832 (IN CONTEXT), relative to today"
Slim educational opportunities for the rank and file
Rigid social hierarchy
Crushing societal pressure to fight in wars
Violence against women was accepted and encouraged
Ownership of human beings
I could go on, but especially for you, Sviggey...
According to the Flynn effect, the average person had an IQ in the
60's.
"The past was great, the future will be bleak, I think this is incontrovertible."
Yup, has been for thousands of years.
"Because it was possible for a white man to earn a living, own land, and start a family back then."
It's still possible, for a SMART white man. This may be hard for you to believe, Sport, but I know one or two white men who earn livings, and have land and families. It has been difficult for YOU to do these things. Land in Kansas is cheap,in many cases they'll give it to you for free nothing is stopping you from living off the grid 1832 style...Oh, except that you hands are as soft as Brooke Sheilds'.
"Anonymous said...
One thing about these new allies of ours is they'll need plenty of fresh ammunition for cultural purposes, ie, to discharge into the air bandido style every time they get the impulse.
Gilbert Pinfold."
I wonder how many of our rebel allies have been killed by their comrades' celebratory weapons firing.
For smart people, 1832 would have been better - not in Kansas but in New York and London. People, even the poorest of peasants, valued intellect and respected their intellectual betters. Smart people could and did educate themselves without the crushing factory-borne regimentation of public schools. And they could graduate from the finest colleges and universities (not high school, college) when they were not even in their teens, and avoid needless boredom.
Back then, a smart little kid leaving the farm or small town for the big city was a hero, not a traitor as now.
"According to the Flynn effect, the average person had an IQ in the
60's."
I'd caution against extrapolating the Flynn effect that far back, or saying that the Flynn gains actually represent *real* gains in intelligence or Spearman's g. The differences in IQ across age cohorts are not measurement invariant according to Jelte Wicherts, and thus, are not suitable for comparison with one another. Does anybody really believe that we've become that significantly smarter since the 1950s? If the Flynn effect represents a real gain in intellectual ability, the intelligence of African Americans today is higher than the average IQ of White Americans 50 years ago. Where is the brutha rocket to da moon?
Anonymous:
You mean the 1832 where an infected cut on the leg means either amputation without anesthesia, or death from gangrene? (Or, if you hit the jackpot, amputation without anesthesia too late, followed by death from gangrene anyway.) The one where most of those smart kids leaving the farm for the city ended up working 12 hour days in a sweatshop? (Where does your smart kid get tuition for a college of any kind?)
The one where most of those smart kids leaving the farm for the city ended up working 12 hour days in a sweatshop? (Where does your smart kid get tuition for a college of any kind?)
The same way as in the Renaissance: patronage.
The Dickensian nightmare world of sweatshops and street urchins had to wait a few decades anyway for huge floods of migrants heading to the cities and factories.
"none of the above said...
Anonymous:
You mean the 1832 where an infected cut on the leg means either amputation without anesthesia, or death from gangrene? (Or, if you hit the jackpot, amputation without anesthesia too late, followed by death from gangrene anyway.)"
So? Do you think that renouncing the traditional understanding of America had anything to do with solving those problems? You think it was affirmative-action hires and HHS bureaucrats who discovered anti-biotics and made them practical?
"The one where most of those smart kids leaving the farm for the city ended up working 12 hour days in a sweatshop? (Where does your smart kid get tuition for a college of any kind?)"
The same place all those dumb kids who go to college get it, from subsidized loans and state largesse. You think it's a big improvement having millions of people go to college who shouldn't?
Chicago said... 3/30/2011 “And why does Obama mention that the shooter was "unfit" to enter the military when he himself would never deign to join up?”
On the surface, it helps to further vilify the shooter as a Bad Person but additionally, this is a subtle reference to the leftist’s interpretation of state monopoly on violence, i.e. only the military, police and other officially sanctioned people are qualified and allowed to possess and use weapons, while the hoi polloi are not.
It also helps to explain the “fierce debate” in the administration.
Post a Comment