Damn a bunch of sad posts. I just got off the phone with Sanna, and she is going to allow me to pick up Frank from daycare today. Today is her day, so it's her call, you know. I get to spend a couple of hours with him, before I head out to the Flying Saucer tonight to see my old nemesis/friend Brittney.
Yesterday, when I was sad, I was sitting around playing blues music. My mom, who was still here visiting, walked in and said, you need to put on some happy music. You don't need "no BB King" right now.
I took her advice and found this gem (embedded below) from Lynyrd Skynrd. The band is playing "T for Texas, T for Tennessee", also known as "Blue Yodel Number 9". It's an old song written and recorded by Jimmy Rodgers in the twenties. Of course Rodgers' version features an acoustic guitar, his voice, and last only a couple of minutes. What Skynyrd does to this tune is pretty amazing. They turned this country tune into a rocking blues jam, running about ten minutes, with three guitarists swapping solos. The star of the jam though, in my opinion, is guitarist Steve Gaines. What a talent and what a loss he was to the guitar world. By the way, Gaines is the one with the beard and the least amount of hair. Lots of hair in this clip. Let me warn you, the sound quality is not that good, and the video quality is even worse, but the jam is awesome. For a better quality video and sound, click here. The reason I chose the black and white one over the color one is simple. In the color version, the cameraman ignores Gaines, who is jamming his butt off, and instead follows around vocalist Ronnie Van Zandt, as if he as some type of crush on Ronnie. It really pisses me off. Rock and Roll ain't about singers, as far as I concerned. Rock and Roll is guitar music. Put the camera on the guitar, you dang idiot.
Anyway, notice what Ronnie says at the beginning of the video. "These intermissions in between songs, are brought to you by Budweiser, king of beers." Then bassist Leon Wilkerson remarks, "Not to mention Acapulco Gold". Heh!
8/28/2008
2/05/2008
Today Is the Big Day
No I am not talking about that stupid primary election. Today is my son Frank's third birthday. It is also the fifth anniversary of my brother's death. My brother was also named Frank, as was my late father. I had made the decision to name my son after my dad and brother when we first found out the baby was going to be a boy. It's just so cool that he came into the world on the same day my brother left the world. I think about my brother a lot, and also my dad. I wish Frank could have known both of them. But he will someday.
1/10/2008
Definitely Not That Word I Am Tired Of Hearing
This rant by Southern Beale got me to thinking that maybe its time to write about how much I love women and why. SB's feelings about what I may or may not be do not really bother me that much. It's her point of view. I respect it.
But I am the farthest thing from someone who hates or dislikes women.
Let me tell you why. Unfortunately, my father died when I was ten. At that time, my brother was finishing up High School and soon after that, he would become married and join the Navy. That left me with my Mama, my sister, and my Aunt Mae, who lived right beside us. For the longest time, through my most selfish years, they may have been the only people I really cared anything about. They most certainly cared about me. That's for sure.
My mother grew up a lot differently than I did. Her mother wasn't anything like the mother she would later be. Now don't get me wrong. I loved my grandmother. But I know for a fact that she wasn't a great mother to my mom. But Mama was a great mom. I will never forget the night that daddy died. My mother held me in her arms while I cried saying "Be strong." Throughout my teen years, she did the best she could to steer me right. Like the song "Mama Tried", she certainly did her best, but I was a wild soul, still inwardly angry about my dad dying. Being shy, I naturally turned to outside substances to get me out of my shell and help me escape. Through all of that, she never stopped loving me. A lot of people gave up on me and wrote me off, but my Mama kept praying, even visiting me in jail. I will always be grateful to her for that. I don't tell her nearly as often as I should.
I was also fortunate to have a good sister. Penny was five years older than me, so she didn't live with us too much longer after my dad died. But she was always around and always looking after me. I remember a specific incident at a football game. She was a majorette in the band and I was always getting into fights behind the bleachers. One Friday night a much older and bigger kid was getting ready to give me a whuppin'. I probably deserved it, by the way. But that didn't matter to Penny. She came out of the stands where the band was sitting and started waving that baton at the big kid's face, threatening him. I was so embarrassed that my sister had rescued me. But deep down I really appreciated it. It showed how much she loved her little brother. Like my mom, she also never gave up on me during the bad times.
Now I want to tell you all about my Aunt Mae. Last November she turned eighty-eight. She is actually my great aunt. There are probably a lot of people who would put her on a list like this. Words can't express how much I love that woman. She has always been so good to me. As a kid, I probably spent as much time at her house as I did my own. She loved and still does love to cook for me. Her and I used to pick blackberries together for blackberry cobbler and jam. She is a very religious person, though not very educated. Being born in 1919, and being poor, education wasn't a priority for her as a little girl. She always talked about how she wished she could have had the opportunities to learn that I had. More than she will ever know, she had a lot of influence in me taking advantage of those opportunities. She also taught me to love animals. She calls them "God's creatures". I am thirty-eight years old and she still sends me a check on my birthday and buys me candy on Valentines and Easter. It might sound funny, but that means so much to me. It always puts a smile on my face.
Finally, I want to talk about my wife Sanna, the most beautiful woman in the world. I really don't know why God blessed me with such a prize as Sanna. I certainly did not do anything to deserve her. She has such a sweet and caring heart. She always encourages me. When we first met, she saw something in me that I didn't know was there. She is not very materialistic at all. She doesn't care for jewelry or nice clothes. All she wants is to spend the rest of her life with me. She is also a great mother. She isn't perfect by any means and neither am I, but she is close enough for me. February will mark our fourth year as husband and wife, and I am still just as much in love with her now as I was when we first started dating. I still can't take my eyes off of her.
No I don't dislike women. I love women very much. But there is no doubt that men and women are different. If recognizing that makes me a sexist, then so be it. We are still equal though, but we are way, way different. Thank goodness for that.
But I am the farthest thing from someone who hates or dislikes women.
Let me tell you why. Unfortunately, my father died when I was ten. At that time, my brother was finishing up High School and soon after that, he would become married and join the Navy. That left me with my Mama, my sister, and my Aunt Mae, who lived right beside us. For the longest time, through my most selfish years, they may have been the only people I really cared anything about. They most certainly cared about me. That's for sure.
My mother grew up a lot differently than I did. Her mother wasn't anything like the mother she would later be. Now don't get me wrong. I loved my grandmother. But I know for a fact that she wasn't a great mother to my mom. But Mama was a great mom. I will never forget the night that daddy died. My mother held me in her arms while I cried saying "Be strong." Throughout my teen years, she did the best she could to steer me right. Like the song "Mama Tried", she certainly did her best, but I was a wild soul, still inwardly angry about my dad dying. Being shy, I naturally turned to outside substances to get me out of my shell and help me escape. Through all of that, she never stopped loving me. A lot of people gave up on me and wrote me off, but my Mama kept praying, even visiting me in jail. I will always be grateful to her for that. I don't tell her nearly as often as I should.
I was also fortunate to have a good sister. Penny was five years older than me, so she didn't live with us too much longer after my dad died. But she was always around and always looking after me. I remember a specific incident at a football game. She was a majorette in the band and I was always getting into fights behind the bleachers. One Friday night a much older and bigger kid was getting ready to give me a whuppin'. I probably deserved it, by the way. But that didn't matter to Penny. She came out of the stands where the band was sitting and started waving that baton at the big kid's face, threatening him. I was so embarrassed that my sister had rescued me. But deep down I really appreciated it. It showed how much she loved her little brother. Like my mom, she also never gave up on me during the bad times.
Now I want to tell you all about my Aunt Mae. Last November she turned eighty-eight. She is actually my great aunt. There are probably a lot of people who would put her on a list like this. Words can't express how much I love that woman. She has always been so good to me. As a kid, I probably spent as much time at her house as I did my own. She loved and still does love to cook for me. Her and I used to pick blackberries together for blackberry cobbler and jam. She is a very religious person, though not very educated. Being born in 1919, and being poor, education wasn't a priority for her as a little girl. She always talked about how she wished she could have had the opportunities to learn that I had. More than she will ever know, she had a lot of influence in me taking advantage of those opportunities. She also taught me to love animals. She calls them "God's creatures". I am thirty-eight years old and she still sends me a check on my birthday and buys me candy on Valentines and Easter. It might sound funny, but that means so much to me. It always puts a smile on my face.
Finally, I want to talk about my wife Sanna, the most beautiful woman in the world. I really don't know why God blessed me with such a prize as Sanna. I certainly did not do anything to deserve her. She has such a sweet and caring heart. She always encourages me. When we first met, she saw something in me that I didn't know was there. She is not very materialistic at all. She doesn't care for jewelry or nice clothes. All she wants is to spend the rest of her life with me. She is also a great mother. She isn't perfect by any means and neither am I, but she is close enough for me. February will mark our fourth year as husband and wife, and I am still just as much in love with her now as I was when we first started dating. I still can't take my eyes off of her.
No I don't dislike women. I love women very much. But there is no doubt that men and women are different. If recognizing that makes me a sexist, then so be it. We are still equal though, but we are way, way different. Thank goodness for that.
1/06/2008
The Problem with Populists
George Will on the Populists:
Indeed. I highly suggest you read the rest of the article. Will nails it, and as for that shrinking middle class.
Heh! Reality and truth are often populisms biggest enemies.
Like Job after losing his camels and acquiring boils, the conservative movement is in distress. Mike Huckabee shreds the compact that has held the movement's two tendencies in sometimes uneasy equipoise. Social conservatives, many of whom share Huckabee's desire to "take back this nation for Christ," have collaborated with limited-government, market-oriented, capitalism-defending conservatives who want to take back the nation for James Madison. Under the doctrine that conservatives call "fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda. Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.
Indeed. I highly suggest you read the rest of the article. Will nails it, and as for that shrinking middle class.
Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 -- because the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled from 12 to 24, while the percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. "So," Rose says, "the entire 'decline' of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder."
Heh! Reality and truth are often populisms biggest enemies.
12/05/2007
My First Trip To Starbucks
I had ridden by the place several times over the years, but never dared to enter it's walls. It seemed like a different world, a different culture. I wasn't really that curious about the place though. I don't like coffee and my stereotype of the type of person known to hang out in there was quite unappealing.
But then it happened. My wife and I had a little bit of time to kill yesterday afternoon and she asked me to do the unthinkable. She asked me to go with her to Starbucks. I initially refused vehemently. There was no way that I would be caught dead in that place. Not only that, but surely the patrons would figure out that I was an outsider and demand that I leave, perhaps even refusing to serve me. She insisted that I come though, saying that she really wanted to see me in there.
Upon entering, my stereotype was quickly verified. Right there on a piece of living room furniture was "pony-tail guy" reading a book. At one table were these two thin, neat looking, young men. They looked like they were really close friends, really close. A few of the people in there actually had textbooks. Some were wearing those really small eyeglasses, the kind Brittney Gilbert wears. Some people were reading and some were having discussions, but I don't think any of them were talking about who they were going to vote for in the Republican Primary. I knew right away that I didn't belong there. I wanted to leave. My lovely wife could see how I was feeling. She was quite amused.
After ordering, we sat down and I inquired about this strange culture. I couldn't believe that a business survived by selling coffee and having people come in, sit down and talk to each other. She became irritated with my wanting to leave and said that we had nothing in common. I agreed and then reminded her of how that was a good thing. "Would you really want to be with me if I was the type of guy that hung out in Starbucks?", I asked. "I guess not," she said.
Finally she finished her coffee and I got out of there, never to return again.
But then it happened. My wife and I had a little bit of time to kill yesterday afternoon and she asked me to do the unthinkable. She asked me to go with her to Starbucks. I initially refused vehemently. There was no way that I would be caught dead in that place. Not only that, but surely the patrons would figure out that I was an outsider and demand that I leave, perhaps even refusing to serve me. She insisted that I come though, saying that she really wanted to see me in there.
Upon entering, my stereotype was quickly verified. Right there on a piece of living room furniture was "pony-tail guy" reading a book. At one table were these two thin, neat looking, young men. They looked like they were really close friends, really close. A few of the people in there actually had textbooks. Some were wearing those really small eyeglasses, the kind Brittney Gilbert wears. Some people were reading and some were having discussions, but I don't think any of them were talking about who they were going to vote for in the Republican Primary. I knew right away that I didn't belong there. I wanted to leave. My lovely wife could see how I was feeling. She was quite amused.
After ordering, we sat down and I inquired about this strange culture. I couldn't believe that a business survived by selling coffee and having people come in, sit down and talk to each other. She became irritated with my wanting to leave and said that we had nothing in common. I agreed and then reminded her of how that was a good thing. "Would you really want to be with me if I was the type of guy that hung out in Starbucks?", I asked. "I guess not," she said.
Finally she finished her coffee and I got out of there, never to return again.
11/26/2007
Huckabee, The Leader Of The Christian Left
Finally, a conservative pundit is attacking the campaign of Mike Huckabee.
Bob Novak writes:
Novak is right. Huckabee is no conservative. He is a big spending, bleeding heart liberal. Sure he may be "socially conservative", but that term is an oxymoron.
In fact, anytime the word social is put in front of the word conservative, just go ahead and cross out the conservative part, because the politician in question surely isn't one. Huckabee is a disaster. In fact he is even less conservative than George Bush, the President who expanded government even more than Lyndon Johnson.
Huckabee, Guiliani, no this isn't your father's Republican Party. It might be your father's Democratic Party, which by the way, looks quite conservative compared to today's Democrats.
Novak sums up the evolution of the Republican Party with this statement:
As one of those conservative-libertarian, Goldwater/Reagan types, who also happens to be an evangelical, that truth breaks my heart. Regardless of the way the media covers most church types, they are actually more in line with modern liberalism than conservatism. Most are not really that conservative at all, but part of that group once called Reagan Democrats. If you don't believe me, ask the average Baptist what he or she (especially she) thinks of TennCare? Why do you think we have TennCare in this Bible Belt state?
Bob Novak writes:
Who would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the conservative, free-market campaign organization the "Club for Greed"? That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder comes from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender -- definitely in Iowa and perhaps nationally. Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.
Novak is right. Huckabee is no conservative. He is a big spending, bleeding heart liberal. Sure he may be "socially conservative", but that term is an oxymoron.
In fact, anytime the word social is put in front of the word conservative, just go ahead and cross out the conservative part, because the politician in question surely isn't one. Huckabee is a disaster. In fact he is even less conservative than George Bush, the President who expanded government even more than Lyndon Johnson.
Huckabee, Guiliani, no this isn't your father's Republican Party. It might be your father's Democratic Party, which by the way, looks quite conservative compared to today's Democrats.
Novak sums up the evolution of the Republican Party with this statement:
The rise of evangelical Christians as the motive force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own.
The danger is a serious contender for the nomination who passes the litmus test of social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and gun control but is far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
As one of those conservative-libertarian, Goldwater/Reagan types, who also happens to be an evangelical, that truth breaks my heart. Regardless of the way the media covers most church types, they are actually more in line with modern liberalism than conservatism. Most are not really that conservative at all, but part of that group once called Reagan Democrats. If you don't believe me, ask the average Baptist what he or she (especially she) thinks of TennCare? Why do you think we have TennCare in this Bible Belt state?
9/30/2007
Jena Six Idiots Are Nothing New To This World
Jason Whitlock has written an excellent article about the Jena 6, in which he does something very unusual for a modern journalist, he relies on facts. He exposes the truth behind all of the made up stories and the unnecessary black eye that this small southern community has received, thanks to poor journalism and one man's "moral" mission.
Every journalist, every blogger, and every private citizen that jumped to conclusions without looking into the facts is..... How do I put this? You all are nothing but a bunch of idiots, stupid gullible idiots. I know that sounds harsh and mean, but it is true. You people are dangerous and you are precisely the reason that our country should be more like a republic and less like a democracy. You are why populist politicians exist and you are precisely why this republic will eventually vote itself into bankruptcy.
But you all were not born out of the situation in Jena, you have always been with us. You were in Russia in 1917 and Cuba in the 1950's? You were there when Marie Antoinette lost her head. You were in Italy screaming "Il Duce", and in Germany chanting "Heil Hitler". You were in Louisiana cheering along Huey Long, and in Alabama clapping for George Wallace. You were there making a spectacle of yourself at the Scopes Monkey Trial. Remember the McCarthy hearings? Yeah that was you. Flag burning and gay marriage? Yep, you again. Global warming hysteria and class envy? Guess who? You people are easy to manipulate, easy to stir into a mob. That's because you don't think. You act on your emotions. Your main characteristics are fear and envy, which makes you a magnet for the populist and his clever manipulation. Thanks to you, we'll probably end up with an inferior government run health care system. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is, you people are idiots. If you all would just think, and not take the words of an entertainer/journalist or rabble rousing populist at face value, then maybe you would not cause so much harm.
Just please, use your brains. If that is too much to ask, then please please, promise that you will never vote again. Please!
Every journalist, every blogger, and every private citizen that jumped to conclusions without looking into the facts is..... How do I put this? You all are nothing but a bunch of idiots, stupid gullible idiots. I know that sounds harsh and mean, but it is true. You people are dangerous and you are precisely the reason that our country should be more like a republic and less like a democracy. You are why populist politicians exist and you are precisely why this republic will eventually vote itself into bankruptcy.
But you all were not born out of the situation in Jena, you have always been with us. You were in Russia in 1917 and Cuba in the 1950's? You were there when Marie Antoinette lost her head. You were in Italy screaming "Il Duce", and in Germany chanting "Heil Hitler". You were in Louisiana cheering along Huey Long, and in Alabama clapping for George Wallace. You were there making a spectacle of yourself at the Scopes Monkey Trial. Remember the McCarthy hearings? Yeah that was you. Flag burning and gay marriage? Yep, you again. Global warming hysteria and class envy? Guess who? You people are easy to manipulate, easy to stir into a mob. That's because you don't think. You act on your emotions. Your main characteristics are fear and envy, which makes you a magnet for the populist and his clever manipulation. Thanks to you, we'll probably end up with an inferior government run health care system. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is, you people are idiots. If you all would just think, and not take the words of an entertainer/journalist or rabble rousing populist at face value, then maybe you would not cause so much harm.
Just please, use your brains. If that is too much to ask, then please please, promise that you will never vote again. Please!
7/02/2007
Should Have Been A Pardon
Well at least he did something. He should have pardoned him though.
What a miscarriage of justice. Scooter Libby was convicted of lying about a crime that never happened. The so-called leaker was actually Richard Armitege, but he really didn't leak anything. Fitzgerald knew that no crime had been committed, yet he still questioned people. Why? If it was evident that the issue did not fall within the statute, for what reason did the special prosecutor continue on?
We all know the answer to that question, don't we? What is so nasty and stinky about this whole thing is that many on the left realize all of this to be true, and that what happened was not exactly right, yet they still approved. They are so full of hatred, that they are willing to allow a special prosecutor to go on a fishing expedition in order to send somebody, anybody to jail. Libby's trial and conviction was nothing but political theater. It never should have happened.
Ironically, the President's Justice Department allowed Sandy Bergler to get off with a slap on the wrist for stuffing classified documents in his britches. Bergler is a Clinton guy and Libby is supposedly a Bush guy. Weird. He sells out his own and lets an opponent get off Scott free.
Amidst all of the statements today, they are still telling the same lies over and over again.
She knows that neither Libby nor Rove leaked anything and she knows that her client was not covert as defined in the statute. Still though, she suffers from diarrhea of the mouth.
Another liar. Conyers knows that Libby did not leak classified information, but he realizes that the media will not challenge him. If Conyers really cared about classified information being leaked, he would call for the arrest of fellow Democrat Patrick "Leaky" Leahy.
Speaking of diarrhea of the mouth. This guy ought to be diagnosed with oral IBS. Reid and everybody else in Washington knows that Joe Wilson was the real liar. Is there suddenly something wrong with discrediting a liar. If the liar is on your side, I guess there is.
The sad fact is that the general public mostly believes these lies. Like I said earlier, the media refuses to challenge these habitual liars. I wonder if any of them remember the Mark Rich pardon. Oh but that was different. Right.
What a miscarriage of justice. Scooter Libby was convicted of lying about a crime that never happened. The so-called leaker was actually Richard Armitege, but he really didn't leak anything. Fitzgerald knew that no crime had been committed, yet he still questioned people. Why? If it was evident that the issue did not fall within the statute, for what reason did the special prosecutor continue on?
We all know the answer to that question, don't we? What is so nasty and stinky about this whole thing is that many on the left realize all of this to be true, and that what happened was not exactly right, yet they still approved. They are so full of hatred, that they are willing to allow a special prosecutor to go on a fishing expedition in order to send somebody, anybody to jail. Libby's trial and conviction was nothing but political theater. It never should have happened.
Ironically, the President's Justice Department allowed Sandy Bergler to get off with a slap on the wrist for stuffing classified documents in his britches. Bergler is a Clinton guy and Libby is supposedly a Bush guy. Weird. He sells out his own and lets an opponent get off Scott free.
Amidst all of the statements today, they are still telling the same lies over and over again.
First, President Bush said any person who leaked would no longer work in his administration. Nonetheless, Scooter Libby didn't leave office until he was indicted and Karl Rove works in the White House even today. - Melanie Sloan, lawyer for Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson
She knows that neither Libby nor Rove leaked anything and she knows that her client was not covert as defined in the statute. Still though, she suffers from diarrhea of the mouth.
Until now, it appeared that the President merely turned a blind eye to a high ranking Administration official leaking classified information. The President's action today makes it clear that he condones such activity.- John Conyers
Another liar. Conyers knows that Libby did not leak classified information, but he realizes that the media will not challenge him. If Conyers really cared about classified information being leaked, he would call for the arrest of fellow Democrat Patrick "Leaky" Leahy.
The President's decision to commute Mr. Libby's sentence is disgraceful. Libby's conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq War.- Harry Reid
Speaking of diarrhea of the mouth. This guy ought to be diagnosed with oral IBS. Reid and everybody else in Washington knows that Joe Wilson was the real liar. Is there suddenly something wrong with discrediting a liar. If the liar is on your side, I guess there is.
The sad fact is that the general public mostly believes these lies. Like I said earlier, the media refuses to challenge these habitual liars. I wonder if any of them remember the Mark Rich pardon. Oh but that was different. Right.
6/21/2007
Cats Are Liberals
Nothing exemplifies the welfare state better than the life of the average cat. My cats Rolo and Harpeth are perfect examples. Their food and water bowls are always full. They come and go as they please, sometimes staying out all night doing God knows what. They are incredibly ungrateful, sometimes sharpening their claws on the furniture and laying in the laundry basket. They have everything they need, yet they still whine and moan as if they are entitled to more. When they get in fights or become sick, they receive free health care. They never take responsibility for any of their behavior. They have an entitlement mentality, passed down from generation to generation. They refuse to work and they lay around all day.
Now I realize that all liberals aren't cats. Some liberals are idealistic and hard working. They are the ones who enable the manipulative felines.
Wait a minute, does that make me a liberal? Aaagh!
6/20/2007
Nativist, Xenophobic, Or How To Argue Against Enforcement of Immigration Laws
Racism, xenophobia, and nativism. If you are a left winger and looking to enter any discussion about illegal immigration, be sure to arm yourselves with those words. They offer you your best chance of victory. Never ever try to argue on an intellectual basis. Forget about the message. Just gun for the messenger. If you do this, victory is yours, regardless of how wrong you are.
I really don't understand the cynicism that people like S-Town Mike have toward their neighbors. Do Mike and his friends, like commenter Ginger, really believe that every one who opposes illegal immigration is a hate filled racist? If they do believe that, no wonder they are so angry.
After hearing this story yesterday, I reacted like most people. A very bright young student, a track star at TSU, and a future law school student, was killed yesterday by a drunk driver. That alone is enough to leave you bothered. Every life is valuable regardless of one's potential, but it especially hurts when an all American girl like this has her life cut short. Maybe we are wrong to seemingly put more value on this young lady's life than others. I don't know, but that's not the point. The point is, a young person was killed by a drunk driver.
Not only though was she killed by a drunk driver, she was killed by a drunk driver who was in this country illegally. But wait, it gets worse. Not only was this guy in this country illegally, but he was arrested four other times for various crimes, including car burglary and public intoxication. That's four times that this man was in the custody of law enforcement without being sent home.
I don't know what sources Mike uses to make his judgments about conservatives, but his immediate assumption that racism has fueled this discussion is just plain wrong. Are people angry and upset? Yes they are, but I haven't seen any protesters walking up and down Nolensville Pike wearing sheets and hoods. No the anger that most Americans feel today, is not aimed at the illegal aliens themselves.
The anger that most Americans feel today, is squarely aimed at the government. Americans don't hate Mexicans. Most Americans probably understand the reasons why illegals come here. As far as the government is concerned though, the average American feels betrayed. They feel like their President, their Senators and Congressmen, their governor, and their state legislators do not care about them nor listen to them. The public has grown increasingly cynical because they lobbied hard to have a fence built, and it has barely been started. The President that they helped elect, has resorted to calling them names, the same names used by lefties like S-Town Mike. When private citizens took time out of their lives to go down to the border and do a job that the government should have been doing, the President even called them "vigilantes". That kind of stuff has left the public angry and they have a right to be angry. When the average American looks at our government, he sees a collection of men and women who pander to special interest groups, rather than the public they are supposed to represent. Some of those groups even represent people that are in this country illegally.
Personally, I am pretty liberal on immigration. I believe we should change our laws to make it easier for people to come here. I also believe we should spend whatever amount it takes to build a fence along the southern border. As far as amnesty is concerned, I don't really care. But before we even start talking about granting anybody amnesty, we need to erect that fence. After we build that fence, then we can talk about amnesty. What is the point in having laws if you are not going to enforce them? The cynical side of me believes that laws passed by Congress merely amount to lip service. They calm the masses for a little bit, while not really amounting to anything. That's why I haven't paid much attention to the immigration bill debate. It just seems like business as usual.
I don't have much else to say about this subject, except that I am tired of seeing descent people labeled racist and xenophobic. That just isn't right and it is far from the truth.
I really don't understand the cynicism that people like S-Town Mike have toward their neighbors. Do Mike and his friends, like commenter Ginger, really believe that every one who opposes illegal immigration is a hate filled racist? If they do believe that, no wonder they are so angry.
After hearing this story yesterday, I reacted like most people. A very bright young student, a track star at TSU, and a future law school student, was killed yesterday by a drunk driver. That alone is enough to leave you bothered. Every life is valuable regardless of one's potential, but it especially hurts when an all American girl like this has her life cut short. Maybe we are wrong to seemingly put more value on this young lady's life than others. I don't know, but that's not the point. The point is, a young person was killed by a drunk driver.
Not only though was she killed by a drunk driver, she was killed by a drunk driver who was in this country illegally. But wait, it gets worse. Not only was this guy in this country illegally, but he was arrested four other times for various crimes, including car burglary and public intoxication. That's four times that this man was in the custody of law enforcement without being sent home.
I don't know what sources Mike uses to make his judgments about conservatives, but his immediate assumption that racism has fueled this discussion is just plain wrong. Are people angry and upset? Yes they are, but I haven't seen any protesters walking up and down Nolensville Pike wearing sheets and hoods. No the anger that most Americans feel today, is not aimed at the illegal aliens themselves.
The anger that most Americans feel today, is squarely aimed at the government. Americans don't hate Mexicans. Most Americans probably understand the reasons why illegals come here. As far as the government is concerned though, the average American feels betrayed. They feel like their President, their Senators and Congressmen, their governor, and their state legislators do not care about them nor listen to them. The public has grown increasingly cynical because they lobbied hard to have a fence built, and it has barely been started. The President that they helped elect, has resorted to calling them names, the same names used by lefties like S-Town Mike. When private citizens took time out of their lives to go down to the border and do a job that the government should have been doing, the President even called them "vigilantes". That kind of stuff has left the public angry and they have a right to be angry. When the average American looks at our government, he sees a collection of men and women who pander to special interest groups, rather than the public they are supposed to represent. Some of those groups even represent people that are in this country illegally.
Personally, I am pretty liberal on immigration. I believe we should change our laws to make it easier for people to come here. I also believe we should spend whatever amount it takes to build a fence along the southern border. As far as amnesty is concerned, I don't really care. But before we even start talking about granting anybody amnesty, we need to erect that fence. After we build that fence, then we can talk about amnesty. What is the point in having laws if you are not going to enforce them? The cynical side of me believes that laws passed by Congress merely amount to lip service. They calm the masses for a little bit, while not really amounting to anything. That's why I haven't paid much attention to the immigration bill debate. It just seems like business as usual.
I don't have much else to say about this subject, except that I am tired of seeing descent people labeled racist and xenophobic. That just isn't right and it is far from the truth.
6/18/2007
Recovering Southerner Syndrome
Dinesh D'souza on Mike Nifong and the Duke professors.
It's like this. You will never ever see me treating black people "differently". Not better, not worse. If you really care about black people and believe that we are all created equal, then treat them the same way you treat white people. Let me warn you though. If you do, there is a good chance you will be labeled a racist.
Nifong seems to be suffering from Recovering Southerner Syndrome. This is the ailment, first named on this blog, in which Southerners feel so guilty about slavery and segregation that they perform undignified backward somersaults to prove that they are "not really Southern." When they encounter something Southern--like white Southern frat boys at a party--their mind immediately conjures up images of segregated water fountains and they draw their swords and go into Crusader Against Racism mode. Viewed in this way, Nifong saw himself as a kind of white knight slaying the dragons of Southern bigotry. Nifong was not alone in this: dozens of Duke professors reacted to the incident in exactly the same way.
It's like this. You will never ever see me treating black people "differently". Not better, not worse. If you really care about black people and believe that we are all created equal, then treat them the same way you treat white people. Let me warn you though. If you do, there is a good chance you will be labeled a racist.
6/12/2007
Reagan and the Wall
Yesterday was the anniversary of Reagan's Berlin Wall speech where he famously said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
Of course if you listen to the revisionists, Reagan had nothing to do with the wall coming down or the Soviet Union falling to pieces. No, he merely just happened to be at the right place at the right time. To them, Gorbachev was the hero. Yes the communist who tried to save communism and the loser of the Cold War is the one they admire, not Reagan, not Thatcher.
Lech Walesa knows the truth about Reagan though.
As do many.
When liberals talk about human rights, they often mention protesters and even a little peanut farmer from Georgia who used to talk about the subject, while never really doing anything. But no man has ever done more for human rights and liberty than Ronald Reagan. He didn't protest. He confronted evil and demanded change. Yet, the so called human rights crowd hated him. Weird.
Of course if you listen to the revisionists, Reagan had nothing to do with the wall coming down or the Soviet Union falling to pieces. No, he merely just happened to be at the right place at the right time. To them, Gorbachev was the hero. Yes the communist who tried to save communism and the loser of the Cold War is the one they admire, not Reagan, not Thatcher.
Lech Walesa knows the truth about Reagan though.
When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty.
As do many.
When liberals talk about human rights, they often mention protesters and even a little peanut farmer from Georgia who used to talk about the subject, while never really doing anything. But no man has ever done more for human rights and liberty than Ronald Reagan. He didn't protest. He confronted evil and demanded change. Yet, the so called human rights crowd hated him. Weird.
6/06/2007
The Dirty Word "Profit"
John Stossel is spot on as usual. He asks:
When did profit become a dirty word?"
I wish the oil executives would face the media. They could say something like:
"What are you complaining about? What do you think we do with our profits? Buy fancy cars and homes? Well, we do, actually, but nearly all the money goes to looking for more oil and following environmental rules that you want us to follow. You should want us to make more profit. Anyway, we make less profit per gallon than your beloved government takes in taxes."
Envy, which happens to be one of the seven deadlies, is what drives American populism. I have a question for all of you economic populists that often complain about the gap between the rich and poor. If you make a rich man less rich, what does it gain the poor man? The answer is nothing. Milton Friedman once said, "Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another."
Left wing populism my friend, is the very definition of an economic fallacy. It doesn't make sense, but then again it doesn't have to. All it has to do is make people angry and envious, so that when they vote, they will vote Democrat.
6/05/2007
Would You Liberals Please Stop Calling Bush A Conservative
It is really getting old. It seems like that every time I or anybody else writes something about the philosophy of conservatism, or right libertarianism, someone from the left enters into the argument by telling us how much George Bush sucks. Even though I and others have repeated this a million times, I will go ahead and do it again, GEORGE BUSH IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE. If you have a brain, perform a Google search and find out how conservatives define conservatism and compare it to the way that George Bush has governed. Better yet, read some conservative writers and even listen to some talk radio (skip Hannity, he is an idiot). You will find that, not even Rush Limbaugh considers George Bush to be a conservative.
I realize that it is a lot easier for you to just throw in "George Bush sucks" to every philosophical discussion, but by doing so you are revealing yourself to be an idiot. Perhaps you are okay with that. It sure seems like it.
I realize that it is a lot easier for you to just throw in "George Bush sucks" to every philosophical discussion, but by doing so you are revealing yourself to be an idiot. Perhaps you are okay with that. It sure seems like it.
5/29/2007
Heaven Forbid, A Business Is Making Money
Populist anti-oil company post of the day:
Oil companies are the only businesses that ever get criticized for making money. When they were losing money, like they did when the price of oil was low, nobody cared. But now that they are making money, everybody freaks. I don't get it. Energy is the most heavily regulated industry in the country. The very people who stir up populism against the oil industry also happen to be the very people who push for more regulation of it. They also are the very people who have prevented a refinery from being built in the last 25 years. They also are the very people who have successfully prevented increased oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and the Rockies. They also are the very people who oppose nuclear power plants. Not only that, but they also are the very people, who believing in man made global warming, actually cheer high gas prices because they think it might lead to less demand. Then they turn around and stir up populist rabble against the oil companies. To make matters worse, the common man buys that nonsense.
Think about what the blogger is saying in her post. "Oil companies also control every aspect of their product’s production and distribution, from the drilling to the refining to the price at the gas station." So in other words, oil companies spend millions of dollars drilling for oil, and operating refineries that convert it into gasoline. Since they invest the money and take the risk, should they not receive a profit?
Government spends nothing. Government takes no risk. Yet government gets 38 cents for every gallon of gas sold by oil companies.
She also says "First of all, there’s nothing “free” about this market: the world runs on oil. There’s no other alternative." First of all, that is not true. There wasn't any oil in the 18th century and people still survived. But I will go along with her and agree that the free world would not enjoy the standard of living that we have today if not for oil. You might say that oil is the fuel of a free society. Knowing that, why do we hate the people who deliver this precious commodity? What if they just decided to stop supplying this need? What would we do then?
Over the last ten years, the economies of China and India have blossomed. The United States has also prospered. As a result, demand for oil and gasoline has increased tremendously. Like I said earlier though, our government has not allowed the oil companies to do anything to support the supply side of this equation.
Gas is much higher than it was last year and yet Memorial Day travel actually increased. Still some of us expect prices to go down. There is no such thing as a business that lowers the cost when supply is low and demand is high. There never has been.
We are living in the most prosperous time that this country has ever seen. I don't like high gas prices anymore than the next guy, but before I ever start complaining, I will probably begin cutting back on things like that super cable package and eating out a couple of times a week.
People stop bitching. If you don't want to pay high gas prices, drive less or buy a small car. Get over it.
First of all, there’s nothing “free” about this market: the world runs on oil. There’s no other alternative. We all have to use it, like it or not. Even if you bike to work. Even if you have a wood stove. Unless you’re a hermit that lives like Jeremiah Johnson, you’re as much a part of the oil economy as everyone else, and you need oil.
Oil companies also control every aspect of their product’s production and distribution, from the drilling to the refining to the price at the gas station. There’s little room for the “free hand of the market” to work in a commodity monopoly.
So if you’re pissed off about the price of gasoline, there’s really very little you can do about it.
Oil companies are the only businesses that ever get criticized for making money. When they were losing money, like they did when the price of oil was low, nobody cared. But now that they are making money, everybody freaks. I don't get it. Energy is the most heavily regulated industry in the country. The very people who stir up populism against the oil industry also happen to be the very people who push for more regulation of it. They also are the very people who have prevented a refinery from being built in the last 25 years. They also are the very people who have successfully prevented increased oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and the Rockies. They also are the very people who oppose nuclear power plants. Not only that, but they also are the very people, who believing in man made global warming, actually cheer high gas prices because they think it might lead to less demand. Then they turn around and stir up populist rabble against the oil companies. To make matters worse, the common man buys that nonsense.
Think about what the blogger is saying in her post. "Oil companies also control every aspect of their product’s production and distribution, from the drilling to the refining to the price at the gas station." So in other words, oil companies spend millions of dollars drilling for oil, and operating refineries that convert it into gasoline. Since they invest the money and take the risk, should they not receive a profit?
Government spends nothing. Government takes no risk. Yet government gets 38 cents for every gallon of gas sold by oil companies.
She also says "First of all, there’s nothing “free” about this market: the world runs on oil. There’s no other alternative." First of all, that is not true. There wasn't any oil in the 18th century and people still survived. But I will go along with her and agree that the free world would not enjoy the standard of living that we have today if not for oil. You might say that oil is the fuel of a free society. Knowing that, why do we hate the people who deliver this precious commodity? What if they just decided to stop supplying this need? What would we do then?
Over the last ten years, the economies of China and India have blossomed. The United States has also prospered. As a result, demand for oil and gasoline has increased tremendously. Like I said earlier though, our government has not allowed the oil companies to do anything to support the supply side of this equation.
Gas is much higher than it was last year and yet Memorial Day travel actually increased. Still some of us expect prices to go down. There is no such thing as a business that lowers the cost when supply is low and demand is high. There never has been.
We are living in the most prosperous time that this country has ever seen. I don't like high gas prices anymore than the next guy, but before I ever start complaining, I will probably begin cutting back on things like that super cable package and eating out a couple of times a week.
People stop bitching. If you don't want to pay high gas prices, drive less or buy a small car. Get over it.
5/20/2007
Larry Flynt and the Loving Preacher
Larry Flynt has written an incredibly interesting article with the heading "My Friend, Jerry Falwell". He discusses Dr. Falwell's lawsuit with Flynt and how the Supreme Court had correctly ruled in his favor. I am not really an expert on that case. In fact, I am not an expert on any case, being that I am not a lawyer. But I will say that regardless of how offensive Flynt's parody was, I am really proud that our Supreme Court put the Constitution ahead of personal feelings. Falwell had a lot of bad moments, but that suit was one of the worst. Sometimes it is better to let things go and to think about how awesome it is to live in a country where people are still allowed to express themselves freely.
Flynt's article paints a picture of Falwell that I have always believed to be true. I have always thought that the public persona and the man were two different people. I don't think Falwell ever hated anybody. Believing that homosexuality and pornography is sin, doesn't mean that you hate gays and pornographers. Obviously, he didn't hate Flynt. Obviously, he loved him.
I really don't understand why people think it is healthy to hate people that they "consider" to be hateful. Do you think that you are hurting the people that you are hating? No, you are only hurting yourself with that poison. You are only making yourself miserable. Last week, when Falwell died, I abstained from shaming the people who said nasty things about Dr. Falwell. If anything, I felt compassion for them. To have that much hate inside must be a miserable existence.
God bless 'em.
Flynt's article paints a picture of Falwell that I have always believed to be true. I have always thought that the public persona and the man were two different people. I don't think Falwell ever hated anybody. Believing that homosexuality and pornography is sin, doesn't mean that you hate gays and pornographers. Obviously, he didn't hate Flynt. Obviously, he loved him.
I really don't understand why people think it is healthy to hate people that they "consider" to be hateful. Do you think that you are hurting the people that you are hating? No, you are only hurting yourself with that poison. You are only making yourself miserable. Last week, when Falwell died, I abstained from shaming the people who said nasty things about Dr. Falwell. If anything, I felt compassion for them. To have that much hate inside must be a miserable existence.
God bless 'em.
4/29/2007
Pay Gap = BS
I took on the subject of the gender pay gap last week. Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune has also written about the subject.
Of course they have.
As the report acknowledges, women with college degrees tend to go into fields like education, psychology and the humanities, which typically pay less than the sectors preferred by men, such as engineering, math and business. They are also more likely than men to work for nonprofit groups and local governments, which do not offer salaries that Alex Rodriguez would envy.As they get older, many women elect to work less so they can spend time with their children. A decade after graduation, 39 percent of women are out of the work force or working part time -- compared with only 3 percent of men. When these mothers return to full-time jobs, they naturally earn less than they would have if they had never left.
Even before they have kids, men and women often do different things that may affect earnings. A year out of college, notes AAUW, women in full-time jobs work an average of 42 hours a week, compared to 45 for men. Men are also far more likely to work more than 50 hours a week.
That my friend is called truth. I know it doesn't fit into the liberal template of America being racist, sexist, and homophobic, but it is truth.
The three leading Democratic presidential candidates have all endorsed legislation to fix the problem.
Of course they have.
4/28/2007
Capitalism Is Freedom
John Norris Brown has been kind enough to respond to my request, and has written an excellent definition of conservatism. The reason I say it is excellent is because it sounds a lot like mine, which was of course perfect.
Not only do I want to comment on a specific passage in JNB's definition, but I also want to criticize AC Kleinheider's criticism of it. The Appalacian Scribe wrote:
As a response to that passage, AC wrote:
Oh my goodness, where does one start?
Economics is more than numbers. Economics is a study of human nature. The best economists are the ones who tend to understand human nature the best. Capitalism is not some type of economic system imposed on people by government. In fact, if there were no government involvement at all, people would naturally be capitalists. Capitalism is the result of individuals being free. Socialism or communism, on the other hand, go against human nature. The only way that the Utopian ideas of Karl Marx could ever be implemented is by the point of a gun. Regardless of how good they sound, human beings are not naturally collectivists.
Obviously capitalism is not perfect. That is because free people are not perfect. Would you rather they not be free though? Would you prefer that the masses be controlled by some large intrusive government, ran by only a few powerful men?
There is no such thing as freedom without economic freedom and capitalism is economic freedom. More government always means less freedom and there can be no socialism without big government.
AC goes on to say:
When I was about 21, the local paper published an editorial that referred to the hard line communists in Russia as conservatives. I wrote a letter to the editor that blasted them for using that term to describe people who subscribe to communism, which is a left wing economic philosophy. For me, the conservatives were the ones wanting to get rid of communism and bring about capitalism, which meant freedom. In my mind, communist equals liberal. Maybe I was wrong. Based on AC's definition, the hard line communists were "preserving the good of tradition". They were "recognizing the imperfectability of man and the human condition".
No wonder some people shudder when they hear the word conservative. I believe in traditional values, but more than anything, I believe in freedom. I believe in individual liberty. I don't believe that mankind is perfect. But I especially don't believe that a government, which is also made up of men, is better suited to correct those imperfections.
If AC is conservative, then I am liberal. Not only that, but modern liberals are also conservative, for it is they who want to maintain the status-quo, which is New Deal/Great Society socialism. No wonder he gets along with them so well.
Not only do I want to comment on a specific passage in JNB's definition, but I also want to criticize AC Kleinheider's criticism of it. The Appalacian Scribe wrote:
I believe that capitalism is the most moral and just economic system. I recognize that it is not perfect, but it is as close as any human system is likely come.
As a response to that passage, AC wrote:
This love of capitalism, bowing at the altar of free trade, all of it. It is not conservatism. Capitalism, Socialism, Comunism are not moral or immoral. They are amoral. Communism is the godless, souless ideology that Reaganites said it was but if Communism is the devil then Capitalism is one of his minions.
Oh my goodness, where does one start?
Economics is more than numbers. Economics is a study of human nature. The best economists are the ones who tend to understand human nature the best. Capitalism is not some type of economic system imposed on people by government. In fact, if there were no government involvement at all, people would naturally be capitalists. Capitalism is the result of individuals being free. Socialism or communism, on the other hand, go against human nature. The only way that the Utopian ideas of Karl Marx could ever be implemented is by the point of a gun. Regardless of how good they sound, human beings are not naturally collectivists.
Obviously capitalism is not perfect. That is because free people are not perfect. Would you rather they not be free though? Would you prefer that the masses be controlled by some large intrusive government, ran by only a few powerful men?
There is no such thing as freedom without economic freedom and capitalism is economic freedom. More government always means less freedom and there can be no socialism without big government.
AC goes on to say:
Conservatism is about preserving the good of tradition. It is about recognizing the imperfectability of man and the human condition and going on from there.
When I was about 21, the local paper published an editorial that referred to the hard line communists in Russia as conservatives. I wrote a letter to the editor that blasted them for using that term to describe people who subscribe to communism, which is a left wing economic philosophy. For me, the conservatives were the ones wanting to get rid of communism and bring about capitalism, which meant freedom. In my mind, communist equals liberal. Maybe I was wrong. Based on AC's definition, the hard line communists were "preserving the good of tradition". They were "recognizing the imperfectability of man and the human condition".
No wonder some people shudder when they hear the word conservative. I believe in traditional values, but more than anything, I believe in freedom. I believe in individual liberty. I don't believe that mankind is perfect. But I especially don't believe that a government, which is also made up of men, is better suited to correct those imperfections.
If AC is conservative, then I am liberal. Not only that, but modern liberals are also conservative, for it is they who want to maintain the status-quo, which is New Deal/Great Society socialism. No wonder he gets along with them so well.
4/26/2007
The Tragedy of Modern Environmentalism
John Stossel writes about how much technology has improved the environment. He even suggests that the environmental movement should be cheering technology and the free market, instead of working against it. Of course deep down, Stossel knows as I do, that the "environmental movement" is not really about the environment at all. It is actually more about stopping the growth of capitalism.
One thing that Stossel doesn't mention in his article is how much technology and development could benefit the people who live on the continent of Africa. "Environmentalists" though, would rather the African people be poor, undeveloped, and with shorter life spans. Africa is the real tragedy of the environmental movement.
The so called "environmentalists" of today happen to be the same people who support high taxes on high income earners. Go figure. Notice that they never support raising taxes on wealth, only taxes on income. You see they already have their fortune. The same is true as far as their "environmentalism" is concerned. They already have the modern luxuries that come from increased technology. They already have a high standard of living. They never propose to get rid of any of their "stuff" though, do they? But they feel so good about themselves when they fly into Africa and spend time convincing Africans that it is better for them to use solar electricity, a source of power that only keeps their small hospitals working for a few hours a day. Then they get back in their limousines, ride back to the airport, get on their big jets and fly back home and enjoy a little bit of air conditioning. Oh, but they "feel" so good about themselves.
One thing that Stossel doesn't mention in his article is how much technology and development could benefit the people who live on the continent of Africa. "Environmentalists" though, would rather the African people be poor, undeveloped, and with shorter life spans. Africa is the real tragedy of the environmental movement.
The so called "environmentalists" of today happen to be the same people who support high taxes on high income earners. Go figure. Notice that they never support raising taxes on wealth, only taxes on income. You see they already have their fortune. The same is true as far as their "environmentalism" is concerned. They already have the modern luxuries that come from increased technology. They already have a high standard of living. They never propose to get rid of any of their "stuff" though, do they? But they feel so good about themselves when they fly into Africa and spend time convincing Africans that it is better for them to use solar electricity, a source of power that only keeps their small hospitals working for a few hours a day. Then they get back in their limousines, ride back to the airport, get on their big jets and fly back home and enjoy a little bit of air conditioning. Oh, but they "feel" so good about themselves.
Collective Guilt versus Individual Responsibility
Thomas Sowell writes about the aftermath of sixties collective guilt.
He also touches on the subject of gun control.
That sentence seems seems so logical to a logical person. How can anyone think otherwise? I just can not understand the way these people's minds work. If you outlaw guns, do you really think that criminals are not going to acquire guns? Do drug users have a hard time finding dope? Would outlawing porn get rid of the porn industry? What about gambling or even prostitution? Why can't you apply the same rationale to guns that you do to things like porn and drugs?
During the 1960s, the idea spread like wildfire that whatever you were lacking was someone else's fault -- society's fault. If you were poor, whether at home or in some Third World country, you were one of the "dispossessed" -- even if you had never possessed anything to dispossess you of.
He also touches on the subject of gun control.
Since murder is illegal everywhere, why would someone who is unwilling to obey the law against murder be willing to obey a law against getting a gun -- which is easy to get illegally?
That sentence seems seems so logical to a logical person. How can anyone think otherwise? I just can not understand the way these people's minds work. If you outlaw guns, do you really think that criminals are not going to acquire guns? Do drug users have a hard time finding dope? Would outlawing porn get rid of the porn industry? What about gambling or even prostitution? Why can't you apply the same rationale to guns that you do to things like porn and drugs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)