I've been thinking about some of the ways things change, and the things that drive the changes.
Right at the moment, firearms are in mind. Lots of people get hung up on the 'guns are bad' idea and either cannot or won't see it any other way.
Once, armies were a core of nobles and attendants, supported by lots of peasants and slaves. When going to war they often took a lot of peasant levies along, but they were mostly for work parties and to get in the way of the enemy.
Then the gun arrived.
When they stopped being clumsy, unreliable toys, they became essential. First cannon, then individual arms. And they changed armies, and the society they were supported by/created by. It takes years to learn to use a sword and shield well; add in a horse and lance, longer, it's best to grow up learning it(nobles). The bow is the same, years of practice to become skilled enough to be useful. And able to handle a bow strong enough to be really useful in a fight. Think Welsh, and Mongol, growing up with stronger bows every year. /side note: it would be interesting to find out how many people wound up with repetitive-stress injuries; sword and bow and axe practice means a lot of the same motions/
But you can train someone to the point of useful skill with a musket in a few weeks. You don't need untrained peasants to wave sticks now, you need people who can take and follow orders and train to be steady under fire. Long term, that means more than changes in an army, it means changes in the society as well.
A gun means you don't have to be big and strong, or spend at least an hour a day practicing, to be able to protect yourself. Yes, bad guys used guns; they've always used the weapons available. Now you had a weapon that made you able to fight a big bad guy even if you were small. /side note: I don't care what people say about empty-hand martial arts, and stun guns, and batons; anyone who lets a bad guy get within reach, if you don't have to, is a fool. The idea is to protect yourself; leave ideas like 'honorable combat' where they belong, which is not in your head when someone attacks you in your home, or a parking lot, or wherever/
Much has been made of the Japanese being the people 'who gave up the gun' because it didn't suit their warrior ethic. Horsecrap. The Samurai used guns, and very effectively, when it suited them. Where the gun did not suit them was in the hands of peasants; it's hard to be a noble samurai, lopping the heads off insolent peasants, if the peasant can shoot you before you're in reach of your sword. They had already banned peasants having weapons of war, firearms were just included in the ban.
Especially as guns became more generally useful, you could tell more about the relative freedom, and respect for the individual, in a society by the attitude toward them. Many places, only military/police/nobles were allowed them most of the time(peasants; Britain, in contrast, pretty much integrated them as more of the arms a subject was supposed to have/know how to use in time of need (yes, I know they did have some restrictions, especially as to religeon of owners; it was still generally expected that a loyal subject of the crown had the right to arms and self-defense. It wasn't until the 1900's that British law began restricting the ownership of arms from honest subjects)
For a lot of people who emigrated to North America, it was a given that you would possess arms, and practice with them. It was considered important enough that when the 2nd Amendment was first proposed, most states though it unnecessary; the right of free men to arms seemed so basic to them that they thought it didn't even need to be mentioned. A couple of states insisted they would not ratify the Constitution unless it was, and so- thank you, founders- we have the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise we might well have gone the way of Britain and Canada and Australia.
This is a short & dirty bit of thought on the matter, but I think it holds true.
I may add to it later.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Status of the world
Well, Bambi is still in the forest, little bugger evaded me this time. (But wait 'till next time, hahahahahhaa)
We've now had several days of below-freezing lows, so hopefully I won't have to mow again. This does mean getting some gas stabilizer to keep the carb in the mower from gumming up over the winter. I may add some to the bike also, just to be on the safe side.
Interesting thing about Oklahoma, in the middle of winter you can get days where, with jacket & gloves, you can ride comfortably; sometimes chaps help. So I don't like to take it out of commission for the season, since I may get some chances to ride.
Cats are insane (see TwoLumps) A dog might decide "I'm gonna go check out the other room" and wander off to do it. A cat jumps up and screams "I've gotta be somewhere else RIGHT NOW!!!" and takes off like you just stuck a stun gun to their tail.
I wrote about the baby-killing in the Netherlands. There's probably no country more steadfastly opposed to the death penalty, for any crime, than the Netherlands. But they can quite calmly write a protocol for how to kill infants and children. Oh, those sophisticated Europeans, why can't we be like them?
The U.N. is trying to push new rules ordering /ORDERING, I SAY!/ that no country can take any kind of military action, no matter what, without U.N. approval. This from an organization that won't take action to stop actual genocides. "We won't do anything about the murder of your citazens, but we won't approve you doing anything, either!" This is one of the reasons why any U.S. politician who says we should subordinate ourselves to the U.N. should be thrown out of office- possibly at the end of a rope.
Further on this, the U.N. has been trying for years to totally ban the ownership of 'small arms' by private citazens of any country. They include all handguns, rifles and shotguns in that category. A big part of their reasoning is that this would keep insurgents from acting against existing governments.
Think about that; no matter how corrupt, cruel, oppressive a government is, the U.N. would rather have it 'stable' than see people have a chance to rebel against it. Oh, no, you have to to through the U.N. to do something about it! We won't act, especially if there's money in not acting, but they damn sure don't want the peasants to do anything about it.
Personal opinion, you have two things at work here. One is the attitude of an organization to gather power to itself no matter the consequences to anyone else. And I think the other is the carryover from a lot of European/royalist/communist attitudes that you cannot let the commoners do anything without approval. The mess in Bosnia was one demonstration of this, I think; remember all the countries that wanted someone(else) to do something, but at the mention of giving arms to people to protect themselves they practically gave birth to purple cows? They'd rather have seen that go on for years than actually 'allow' anyone arms with which to defend themselves. The U.N. has that attitude and is continually trying to make it impossible for anyone to do anything without their approval.
Screw the U.N.
I've got a big holly bush at each front corner of the house, practically covered with berries. I need to prune them back, but I'll wait 'till spring; the berries make the birds happy.
Have you ever actually moved through a house with a sword, seeing how you'd use one in the event of a burglar? I'll take firearms, thank you.
We've now had several days of below-freezing lows, so hopefully I won't have to mow again. This does mean getting some gas stabilizer to keep the carb in the mower from gumming up over the winter. I may add some to the bike also, just to be on the safe side.
Interesting thing about Oklahoma, in the middle of winter you can get days where, with jacket & gloves, you can ride comfortably; sometimes chaps help. So I don't like to take it out of commission for the season, since I may get some chances to ride.
Cats are insane (see TwoLumps) A dog might decide "I'm gonna go check out the other room" and wander off to do it. A cat jumps up and screams "I've gotta be somewhere else RIGHT NOW!!!" and takes off like you just stuck a stun gun to their tail.
I wrote about the baby-killing in the Netherlands. There's probably no country more steadfastly opposed to the death penalty, for any crime, than the Netherlands. But they can quite calmly write a protocol for how to kill infants and children. Oh, those sophisticated Europeans, why can't we be like them?
The U.N. is trying to push new rules ordering /ORDERING, I SAY!/ that no country can take any kind of military action, no matter what, without U.N. approval. This from an organization that won't take action to stop actual genocides. "We won't do anything about the murder of your citazens, but we won't approve you doing anything, either!" This is one of the reasons why any U.S. politician who says we should subordinate ourselves to the U.N. should be thrown out of office- possibly at the end of a rope.
Further on this, the U.N. has been trying for years to totally ban the ownership of 'small arms' by private citazens of any country. They include all handguns, rifles and shotguns in that category. A big part of their reasoning is that this would keep insurgents from acting against existing governments.
Think about that; no matter how corrupt, cruel, oppressive a government is, the U.N. would rather have it 'stable' than see people have a chance to rebel against it. Oh, no, you have to to through the U.N. to do something about it! We won't act, especially if there's money in not acting, but they damn sure don't want the peasants to do anything about it.
Personal opinion, you have two things at work here. One is the attitude of an organization to gather power to itself no matter the consequences to anyone else. And I think the other is the carryover from a lot of European/royalist/communist attitudes that you cannot let the commoners do anything without approval. The mess in Bosnia was one demonstration of this, I think; remember all the countries that wanted someone(else) to do something, but at the mention of giving arms to people to protect themselves they practically gave birth to purple cows? They'd rather have seen that go on for years than actually 'allow' anyone arms with which to defend themselves. The U.N. has that attitude and is continually trying to make it impossible for anyone to do anything without their approval.
Screw the U.N.
I've got a big holly bush at each front corner of the house, practically covered with berries. I need to prune them back, but I'll wait 'till spring; the berries make the birds happy.
Have you ever actually moved through a house with a sword, seeing how you'd use one in the event of a burglar? I'll take firearms, thank you.
Friday, December 03, 2004
Stick that fork in Britain again
Check out Nanny Knows Best, for the latest in how the all-knowing minions of government are making sure the British subject is properly controlled- er, taken care of.
Can't trust peasants to change their own light bulbs, you know.
Can't trust peasants to change their own light bulbs, you know.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Up-to-date European Healthcare
At Wizbang, found this.
I am at a loss. That a society can slide to this and simply take it in stride...
Both my kids were premature. Both of them might well have been murdered by these 'doctors' because of their health problems. They are 22 and 20 now, and doing quite well.
If some doctor had informed me that he killed my child because 'their health problems would have kept them from having a proper life', or I found out about it later, said doctor better have his will made out. Because I would have killed him. No question.
Someone once pointed out that if a government does not/refuses to protect citazens from crime, the citazens have a right to take the law into their own hands. Well, if doctors/government decide they can kill your child and you have no say because
"A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors"
then a parent has the right to take what actions are necessary to protect their children. And other's children.
Yes I'm writing this in the heat of the moment. I hope I never lose that heat at the idea of such things being done.
I am at a loss. That a society can slide to this and simply take it in stride...
Both my kids were premature. Both of them might well have been murdered by these 'doctors' because of their health problems. They are 22 and 20 now, and doing quite well.
If some doctor had informed me that he killed my child because 'their health problems would have kept them from having a proper life', or I found out about it later, said doctor better have his will made out. Because I would have killed him. No question.
Someone once pointed out that if a government does not/refuses to protect citazens from crime, the citazens have a right to take the law into their own hands. Well, if doctors/government decide they can kill your child and you have no say because
"A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors"
then a parent has the right to take what actions are necessary to protect their children. And other's children.
Yes I'm writing this in the heat of the moment. I hope I never lose that heat at the idea of such things being done.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Life do keep things busy
The weather has now dried out a bit, no rain for a few days, but with temperatures bouncing between 20's-30's for lows and 40's & 50's for highs, alternating dry north winds and humid southerly winds, the ground isn't going to dry out anytime soon. This means, among other things, that the grass will keep growing /I may have to mow again/ and the ground will remain soft, making it hard to mow in some places. Most of the time I could get out to chase deer, it was wet enough, or another front coming through, that the critters were bedded down and not moving. And the jacket that feels so nice in the morning may be damn hot in the afternoon.
I have a niece who in the past has had liver trouble. She's now basically in liver failure, as I understand it, and they're setting up to transfer her to Pittsburg. There's a world-class transplant center here in town, but the doctor they want to use is in Pittsburg, so...
So far, grocery shopping hasn't been too bad; either I've been there before/after the crowd, or the crowd is at the other end of the store. It won't last, but it's nice while it does.
I was going to send in a target for Neanderpundit's postal match, but with the above stuff combined with work, there won't be time/weather to get to the range. Dammit.
At least Day by Day is back up.
I have a niece who in the past has had liver trouble. She's now basically in liver failure, as I understand it, and they're setting up to transfer her to Pittsburg. There's a world-class transplant center here in town, but the doctor they want to use is in Pittsburg, so...
So far, grocery shopping hasn't been too bad; either I've been there before/after the crowd, or the crowd is at the other end of the store. It won't last, but it's nice while it does.
I was going to send in a target for Neanderpundit's postal match, but with the above stuff combined with work, there won't be time/weather to get to the range. Dammit.
At least Day by Day is back up.
Monday, November 29, 2004
"Can I search your vehicle?"
Kim du Toit has a link to a story about a Brit who was asked if the cops could search his vehicle for 'training purposes'. They arrested him for having a Swiss Army knife in his case. That's in Britain, where owning damn near anything is illegal anymore, but similar things happen here.
A lot of agencies/cops are real big on "Do you have any guns/drugs/whatever in your car? Can I search it?". If you say yes, anything- ANYTHING- they may find can be used against you. A lot of them don't care if you're traveling through, and your offense is not having a legal firearm cased properly according to local/state law, they'll bust you.
And if you say no...
I've heard far too many stories- including from people in the law enforcement community- about how they bully/threaten people to push them into saying yes. And they can make you sit on the side of the road for a time while they summon a drug dog to sniff around the car, and if he alerts on anything- including prescription meds- they'll use that as cause to take the car apart. And from what I've heard, they'll use the various criminal history databases in ways they're not supposed to be used to try to find 'cause' for a search.
There's far too many people with badges out there who have gone completely into the "us vs. them" attitude toward EVERYONE; and it's costing all the way around. The cops look with distrust/contempt on anyone not a member of the club; citazens treated with obvious contempt tend to return it; and someone who gets their vehicle taken apart because they dared say 'no' to a search are going to have a bad attitude toward law enforcement ever after in many cases. Doesn't do to tell them 'it was just one jerk', because after that the attitude of other cops that they may have glossed over in the past now becomes obvious and resented.
In some ways the Patriot Act has made it worse. Yes, I know there's no record of it being actually abused(that I know of), but the fact that some agencies can do damn near anything and blanket it under that- even theoretically- really pisses a lot of people off. The actions of a lot of the TSA people at airports is a good example; they can do something really egregious, and if you object you can be arrested. Doesn't matter that they were wrong, WE'RE THE TSA, PEOPLE, and you better put up with anything we do or else! And it is abused, and people rightly resent it, and that takes things further downhill.
Personally, I would never agree to a search of my vehicle. If they think they have legal reason to search my vehicle- or house, for that matter- they can damn well get a search warrant. I know I'm not a legal scholar, and there's so many complications in this/one of the damn problems/ that there's probably ways they can search without a warrant. But I'll not agree to help them, and if they go outside the bounds I will file a complaint, or get a lawyer if I think it's warranted.
I keep remembering Martha Stewart went to prison for "lying to a federal investigator". She wasn't under oath, wasn't in a courtroom, but they were able to convince a jury that she 'lied' to an investigator in an informal interview about a crime they can't prove she committed.
Ain't all this wonderful?
A lot of agencies/cops are real big on "Do you have any guns/drugs/whatever in your car? Can I search it?". If you say yes, anything- ANYTHING- they may find can be used against you. A lot of them don't care if you're traveling through, and your offense is not having a legal firearm cased properly according to local/state law, they'll bust you.
And if you say no...
I've heard far too many stories- including from people in the law enforcement community- about how they bully/threaten people to push them into saying yes. And they can make you sit on the side of the road for a time while they summon a drug dog to sniff around the car, and if he alerts on anything- including prescription meds- they'll use that as cause to take the car apart. And from what I've heard, they'll use the various criminal history databases in ways they're not supposed to be used to try to find 'cause' for a search.
There's far too many people with badges out there who have gone completely into the "us vs. them" attitude toward EVERYONE; and it's costing all the way around. The cops look with distrust/contempt on anyone not a member of the club; citazens treated with obvious contempt tend to return it; and someone who gets their vehicle taken apart because they dared say 'no' to a search are going to have a bad attitude toward law enforcement ever after in many cases. Doesn't do to tell them 'it was just one jerk', because after that the attitude of other cops that they may have glossed over in the past now becomes obvious and resented.
In some ways the Patriot Act has made it worse. Yes, I know there's no record of it being actually abused(that I know of), but the fact that some agencies can do damn near anything and blanket it under that- even theoretically- really pisses a lot of people off. The actions of a lot of the TSA people at airports is a good example; they can do something really egregious, and if you object you can be arrested. Doesn't matter that they were wrong, WE'RE THE TSA, PEOPLE, and you better put up with anything we do or else! And it is abused, and people rightly resent it, and that takes things further downhill.
Personally, I would never agree to a search of my vehicle. If they think they have legal reason to search my vehicle- or house, for that matter- they can damn well get a search warrant. I know I'm not a legal scholar, and there's so many complications in this/one of the damn problems/ that there's probably ways they can search without a warrant. But I'll not agree to help them, and if they go outside the bounds I will file a complaint, or get a lawyer if I think it's warranted.
I keep remembering Martha Stewart went to prison for "lying to a federal investigator". She wasn't under oath, wasn't in a courtroom, but they were able to convince a jury that she 'lied' to an investigator in an informal interview about a crime they can't prove she committed.
Ain't all this wonderful?
Sunday, November 28, 2004
This ain't dissent
Insty has a link /no, I'm not going to put it up/ to a post saying the goal for the left is to make sure we lose in Iraq.
This clown is specifically wanting to see the terrorists and mideast Nazis win.
As somebody put it, there's a big difference between dissenting and being on the other side.
This clown is specifically wanting to see the terrorists and mideast Nazis win.
As somebody put it, there's a big difference between dissenting and being on the other side.
Ok, this is amazing!
This article tells about a woman who is walking, years after a spinal cord injury, after therapy using umbilical cord stem cells.
If this pans out to be more than a one-time thing, it's bloody wonderful. I've read that fetal stem cells have not really worked out well, but umbilical cells are a different matter. They seem to work much better, and don't involve the ethical problems with fetal cells.
I hope this works out.
Found at Instapundit
If this pans out to be more than a one-time thing, it's bloody wonderful. I've read that fetal stem cells have not really worked out well, but umbilical cells are a different matter. They seem to work much better, and don't involve the ethical problems with fetal cells.
I hope this works out.
Found at Instapundit
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Evening thoughts
It's turning cold again after a nice day and-a-half, and there's a chance of more rain tomorrow afternoon. Oh joy. At least I got the yard mowed this afternoon before it got too dark, though I hope it'll be dry enough tomorrow to let me use the weedeater around the stone edging I built around the beds in front.
A cat in the lap is warm, but can make it damn hard to type.
The dog loves a thick bed of straw in the house, but drags a lot of it out as she enters and exits. Good thing I have the rest of the bale.
James Doss is a good writer, and Charlie Moon is a fine character. So is his aunt Daisy.
I could go broke in an evening on Half.com. Or Brownells. Or Museum Replicas. Or...
I'm so glad I got the furnace taken care of BEFORE it turned cold. And wet.
I got rid of a lot of stuff when I moved eight years ago, and again when I moved here. Ever notice how the crap multiplies?
I need to put a shed in the back yard for various tools. And I'd like to have some kind of storm shelter; sometimes the wind doesn't just sweep down the plains here, it vacuums too.
Celtic Crossing, just a shot or so, goes very well in pecan pie.
And I need to get to the range. It always burns off some stress, and I enjoy it.
I STILL want to see a good picture of Sondra K. Hey lady, I gave you one of me! How 'bout it?
That's it for now.
A cat in the lap is warm, but can make it damn hard to type.
The dog loves a thick bed of straw in the house, but drags a lot of it out as she enters and exits. Good thing I have the rest of the bale.
James Doss is a good writer, and Charlie Moon is a fine character. So is his aunt Daisy.
I could go broke in an evening on Half.com. Or Brownells. Or Museum Replicas. Or...
I'm so glad I got the furnace taken care of BEFORE it turned cold. And wet.
I got rid of a lot of stuff when I moved eight years ago, and again when I moved here. Ever notice how the crap multiplies?
I need to put a shed in the back yard for various tools. And I'd like to have some kind of storm shelter; sometimes the wind doesn't just sweep down the plains here, it vacuums too.
Celtic Crossing, just a shot or so, goes very well in pecan pie.
And I need to get to the range. It always burns off some stress, and I enjoy it.
I STILL want to see a good picture of Sondra K. Hey lady, I gave you one of me! How 'bout it?
That's it for now.
Interesting stuff
One of the odd things that's always interested me is the subject of poisons, and how they work. Lots of stuff in movies and books- most of that of little or no accuracy- and lots of folklore.
Barking Moonbat Early Warning System found an article about a poison old in its region, new to everyone else(which is often how it works). From a tree, effects much like foxglove, but not detected the same way. Next edition of 'Deadly Doses' is going to have to add this in.
Also at BMEWS, Christmas Controversies
Barking Moonbat Early Warning System found an article about a poison old in its region, new to everyone else(which is often how it works). From a tree, effects much like foxglove, but not detected the same way. Next edition of 'Deadly Doses' is going to have to add this in.
Also at BMEWS, Christmas Controversies
The Wisconsin hunter murders
Gunwatch has some more info on the mess, and it adds a whole new dimension to it. Go there, and read the whole thing.
Hate crimes
Having finally digested the Thanksgiving dinner that some friends forced upon me/you don't think I'd eat that much all on my OWN, do you?/, I want to put some thoughts down.
Ann Althouse has a piece about a show 20/20 was doing about the Matthew Shepard murder. Basically, it points out that it was a lot less due to the supposed hate of homosexuals, and a lot more to do with simple robbery and murder related to drugs. And about all the screaming by people who've used the 'approved version' of the murder to push their political vision, and don't want their tear-jerking fund-raising story challenged.
For a lot of people, it's not enough that it be a horrible murder; it has to be a horrible murder committed for the 'right' reasons, so it can be used to push an agenda. Which is another reason I don't like the idea of hate-crimes laws.
This was, no mistake, a terrible act. But it's supposed to have been worse because, in the way it was originally put forth, it was committed because Shepard was homosexual. He's no more dead because the reason for the act was one thing or another; it was no more or less horrible a way to die; but we're supposed to be especially outraged because of what the murderers had in their minds when they did it.
This would mean that a: we're supposed to figure out exactly what someone was thinking when an incident happened, and b: that there are classes of victim that are more important than others. The one is usually impossible, and the other is despicable.
Someone punches another guy; turns out the guy punched was gay; therefore it's a worse crime than if a straight guy was punched? Horsecrap. Besides the fact that he's no more damaged than anyone else, how the hell to you prove what the puncher was thinking? He may have punched for some reason that has nothing to do with with sex, but it will be automatically assumed by many that it did. Especially by those who stand to gain; a prosecutor making a reputation as a 'defender of minorities', activists who need someone new as a victim to trumpet, and so forth.
There's a reason our laws are based on what you do, not what you think. Thinking about something is not a crime; actually planning an act can be. There's a big difference. If you commit an assault or murder, I don't really care what was in your mind, I care that the crime be punished, the punishment being for the act, not for your supposed thoughts.
Yes, I know that someone can plan to do something for a stupid/evil reason. Doesn't make what they did to someone any worse. If someone plans to torture someone to death because of something they are, it doesn't make the act any worse than if they picked someone at random. It can show that the actor had premeditated the crime, and that should affect punishment. But to me, that should be the extent of it.
For what it's worth.
Update: Althouse says the 20/20 piece was less than convincing to her. I didn't see it, so I can't say. Doesn't affect my opinion on the matter of 'hate-crime' legislation. Whether as part of a robbery or because Shepard was homosexual, or a mix of both, he's dead. And the ones who did it are in prison with the maximum penalties a jury would give. Saying their state of mind at the time of the crime was unapproved wouldn't change either the death or their punishment.
Another thing that bothered me was that when it was announced that 20/20 was going to do this segment, they caught a lot of grief from people, basically for daring to put out something that challenged the 'approved' version of the story. Happily, they went ahead. If their information is bad that'll come out, and if they put out information people should know about this, that's to the good. I do not like news being censored either by screaming or by people in a newsroom more concerned with being PC than with getting facts out.
Further update: Clayton Cramer has some more on this, and saw the 20/20 piece a bit differently than Althouse.
More: forgot about this article at Reason on the Shepard case
Ann Althouse has a piece about a show 20/20 was doing about the Matthew Shepard murder. Basically, it points out that it was a lot less due to the supposed hate of homosexuals, and a lot more to do with simple robbery and murder related to drugs. And about all the screaming by people who've used the 'approved version' of the murder to push their political vision, and don't want their tear-jerking fund-raising story challenged.
For a lot of people, it's not enough that it be a horrible murder; it has to be a horrible murder committed for the 'right' reasons, so it can be used to push an agenda. Which is another reason I don't like the idea of hate-crimes laws.
This was, no mistake, a terrible act. But it's supposed to have been worse because, in the way it was originally put forth, it was committed because Shepard was homosexual. He's no more dead because the reason for the act was one thing or another; it was no more or less horrible a way to die; but we're supposed to be especially outraged because of what the murderers had in their minds when they did it.
This would mean that a: we're supposed to figure out exactly what someone was thinking when an incident happened, and b: that there are classes of victim that are more important than others. The one is usually impossible, and the other is despicable.
Someone punches another guy; turns out the guy punched was gay; therefore it's a worse crime than if a straight guy was punched? Horsecrap. Besides the fact that he's no more damaged than anyone else, how the hell to you prove what the puncher was thinking? He may have punched for some reason that has nothing to do with with sex, but it will be automatically assumed by many that it did. Especially by those who stand to gain; a prosecutor making a reputation as a 'defender of minorities', activists who need someone new as a victim to trumpet, and so forth.
There's a reason our laws are based on what you do, not what you think. Thinking about something is not a crime; actually planning an act can be. There's a big difference. If you commit an assault or murder, I don't really care what was in your mind, I care that the crime be punished, the punishment being for the act, not for your supposed thoughts.
Yes, I know that someone can plan to do something for a stupid/evil reason. Doesn't make what they did to someone any worse. If someone plans to torture someone to death because of something they are, it doesn't make the act any worse than if they picked someone at random. It can show that the actor had premeditated the crime, and that should affect punishment. But to me, that should be the extent of it.
For what it's worth.
Update: Althouse says the 20/20 piece was less than convincing to her. I didn't see it, so I can't say. Doesn't affect my opinion on the matter of 'hate-crime' legislation. Whether as part of a robbery or because Shepard was homosexual, or a mix of both, he's dead. And the ones who did it are in prison with the maximum penalties a jury would give. Saying their state of mind at the time of the crime was unapproved wouldn't change either the death or their punishment.
Another thing that bothered me was that when it was announced that 20/20 was going to do this segment, they caught a lot of grief from people, basically for daring to put out something that challenged the 'approved' version of the story. Happily, they went ahead. If their information is bad that'll come out, and if they put out information people should know about this, that's to the good. I do not like news being censored either by screaming or by people in a newsroom more concerned with being PC than with getting facts out.
Further update: Clayton Cramer has some more on this, and saw the 20/20 piece a bit differently than Althouse.
More: forgot about this article at Reason on the Shepard case
Thursday, November 25, 2004
And a politician admits it
Next time you read something about how the media is prejudiced toward conservatives, remember this. Wizbang has the link to a Democrat politician saying this:
SANCHEZ: I agree with Jesse. I agree with my colleague. I believe that we made mistakes. The media certainly is not in our hands any longer, and, in particular, radio talk shows where that is completely in the opposition's hands, and they use it effectively against us.
BLITZER: But, Loretta, when you say the media -- when you say the media is not in your hands, are you saying that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN are hostile to Democrats?
SANCHEZ: No, that's not what I said. I'm saying that -- if you would let me finish -- that the majority of people are now receiving a lot of their information out of radio. And the radio isn't in the hands of the Democrats anymore.
"The media is certainly not in our hands any longer". Here's a Democrat politician stating flatly that it was in their hands up 'till now.
As they say, 'Read the Whole Thing'
SANCHEZ: I agree with Jesse. I agree with my colleague. I believe that we made mistakes. The media certainly is not in our hands any longer, and, in particular, radio talk shows where that is completely in the opposition's hands, and they use it effectively against us.
BLITZER: But, Loretta, when you say the media -- when you say the media is not in your hands, are you saying that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN are hostile to Democrats?
SANCHEZ: No, that's not what I said. I'm saying that -- if you would let me finish -- that the majority of people are now receiving a lot of their information out of radio. And the radio isn't in the hands of the Democrats anymore.
"The media is certainly not in our hands any longer". Here's a Democrat politician stating flatly that it was in their hands up 'till now.
As they say, 'Read the Whole Thing'
Rabies
is one of the diseases that tends to bring out the horror in people. It's one of the nastiest ones, with no real treatment.
'Till now.
Ann Althouse links to an article about a girl who was successfully treated for rabies after she had developed gross symptoms. Which is amazing; up until very recently, if you developed any symptoms before getting the vaccine, you were dead. In this case, she being too far along for the vaccine, they induced a coma to help her survive while the disease ran its course.
The vaccine for animals is now much better, there's even a form that can be given orally; I've read that they put it in bait and air-drop in areas to treat the wildlife in areas where it is/is becoming a problem. The vaccine given to humans before symptoms show is 100%. Some things are definately getting better.
'Till now.
Ann Althouse links to an article about a girl who was successfully treated for rabies after she had developed gross symptoms. Which is amazing; up until very recently, if you developed any symptoms before getting the vaccine, you were dead. In this case, she being too far along for the vaccine, they induced a coma to help her survive while the disease ran its course.
The vaccine for animals is now much better, there's even a form that can be given orally; I've read that they put it in bait and air-drop in areas to treat the wildlife in areas where it is/is becoming a problem. The vaccine given to humans before symptoms show is 100%. Some things are definately getting better.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Hard to hunt when you're sinking
Into the ground, that is. It's STILL raining off & on here, and the woods are as soggy as a sponge just taken out of the water. Was able to spend a few hours out yesterday. I can take wet, and I can take cold; when they combine, it gets to be a little too much. When the mist and the occasional drop or two turned to rain, I gave up and hiked in.
There's some real nice hunting rain gear out there, but it's a bit expensive, like a couple of hundred dollars. I don't have enough chance to use it to be able to justify paying that. Besides, when the weather kicks up like that the deer bed down, and unless you trip over one, you'll never see them. Woods that are normally alive with stuff, I saw one squirrel.
Well, the season continues for a bit, so there should be more chance to get out. And it's actually supposed to stop raining this afternoon, at least for the next few days. Damn time, too, according to what I've read we are now either tied or have surpassed some records for November rainfall.
There's some real nice hunting rain gear out there, but it's a bit expensive, like a couple of hundred dollars. I don't have enough chance to use it to be able to justify paying that. Besides, when the weather kicks up like that the deer bed down, and unless you trip over one, you'll never see them. Woods that are normally alive with stuff, I saw one squirrel.
Well, the season continues for a bit, so there should be more chance to get out. And it's actually supposed to stop raining this afternoon, at least for the next few days. Damn time, too, according to what I've read we are now either tied or have surpassed some records for November rainfall.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Dan Rather is going!.....
eventually.
Just heard on the news that he's going to step down- in the SPRING- but will stay on 60 Minutes.
Ok, so after one more piece of BS reporting, this involving counterfeit documents and coverups, there's still no investigation by C BS that we're aware of, and he's stepping down from the evening news in SEVERAL MONTHS but staying on the payroll on a NEWS SHOW.
To be blunt, I call bullshit. It's more 'now all you peasants go away and shut up'.
Just heard on the news that he's going to step down- in the SPRING- but will stay on 60 Minutes.
Ok, so after one more piece of BS reporting, this involving counterfeit documents and coverups, there's still no investigation by C BS that we're aware of, and he's stepping down from the evening news in SEVERAL MONTHS but staying on the payroll on a NEWS SHOW.
To be blunt, I call bullshit. It's more 'now all you peasants go away and shut up'.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Ah, encouragement from your 'friends'
The neighbors of Iraq are saying they need to decide if the Iraqi elections will take place on time. Including the comment that "Dates are not sacred. What is sacred is the process.".
Number one, dipsticks, it's not YOUR decision to make, it is the decision of the Iraqi interim government.
Second, there's nothing 'sacred' about the process you want to follow, which is basically telling the Iraqis how they will run their country. Screw you.
Lastly, "If the elections took place but were boycotted, there would be a lack of equilibrium in the Sunni representation," he warned. That was from an arab delegate who requested anonymity. Again, screw you. If a bunch of the Sunni boycott the election, then they won't get to vote. Period. The people calling for the boycott are the same ones who support the terrorists who think torturing and murdering aid workers shows their devotion to God (and their devotion to staying on top of the country, let's not forget that part). They don't want to vote? Fine. They'll let the Shia and Kurds and Christians and Jews and whoever else select the national government.
And you think that government will be real tolerant of the crap the Sunni troublemakers are causing? Somehow, I don't think so.
Number one, dipsticks, it's not YOUR decision to make, it is the decision of the Iraqi interim government.
Second, there's nothing 'sacred' about the process you want to follow, which is basically telling the Iraqis how they will run their country. Screw you.
Lastly, "If the elections took place but were boycotted, there would be a lack of equilibrium in the Sunni representation," he warned. That was from an arab delegate who requested anonymity. Again, screw you. If a bunch of the Sunni boycott the election, then they won't get to vote. Period. The people calling for the boycott are the same ones who support the terrorists who think torturing and murdering aid workers shows their devotion to God (and their devotion to staying on top of the country, let's not forget that part). They don't want to vote? Fine. They'll let the Shia and Kurds and Christians and Jews and whoever else select the national government.
And you think that government will be real tolerant of the crap the Sunni troublemakers are causing? Somehow, I don't think so.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Motorcycles...
...are one thing I do truly enjoy. At least when the weather allows.
I'm fairly flexible on weather. I don't like getting caught in rain- I have issues with traction- and hail is definately not fun. Too cold keeps me off; coldest I've ridden in is about 25F, had to get to work and the bike was my only transport, and yes, I DID freeze my bahoogies off(or at least it felt like it). I wouldn't like a serious highway trip below, say, 45; even with chaps, boots, etc., it gets too damn cold. But above that, not too bad, just put on the chaps, gloves, etc. Not going too far? Can do without the chaps, then.
I admit I'm a bit chicken about riding in cold anymore, may hands stiffen up. But cool is a delight. One of the finest mornings I ever had was coming back from Dallas. At highway speeds before the sun came up was a touch cool, almost uncomfortable. But the sun did come up and after that... it was wonderful. The wind was light, traffic on the interstate was light, no black&whites around, I repeat, wonderful. Especially going through the Arbuckle Mountains. Curves, uphill & down, and nobody in the way. I found that a Vulcan 750 will cruise at 80 through this with no strain, and on the level ground a throttle lock is very nice to have.
I've never had a Harley. Most of them, used in good condition or new, cost too much, and I haven't really cared for the styling; also, up 'till the last few years they tended to leak. I've owned Hondas and now a Kawasaki, the above-mentioned Vulcan, and they've all worked well. Now that Harley has solved the leakage problems I may look at one for my next bike; most of the cruiser-style bikes at other makes are big, heavy, and I don't really care for their looks.
I've been real happy with the Vulcan. In cool-cold weather, the liquid cooling lets it warm up better than air-cooled bikes I've ridden. The shaft-drive is very nice, no chain or belt to adjust and lube. The only problems I've had were a:, the seat and b: the charging system.
After one trip to Texas I swore I was going to replace the factory seat, and it now sports a Mustang; much better. And the charging system, especially in cold weather, doesn't seem up to keeping the lights running and the battery at full charge. I've found a site that has a fix for the electrical problem, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
I do wish more after-market parts people made stuff for the 750; I'd really like some hard saddlebags, but the Kawasaki ones are small and won't hold much, and I haven't found any others that I can be sure would fit without a lot of fiddling.
Come spring, I'll be putting on new radiator hoses and a new clutch, and with any luck next summer will find me at Sturgis. I'd like to see that rally.
I'm fairly flexible on weather. I don't like getting caught in rain- I have issues with traction- and hail is definately not fun. Too cold keeps me off; coldest I've ridden in is about 25F, had to get to work and the bike was my only transport, and yes, I DID freeze my bahoogies off(or at least it felt like it). I wouldn't like a serious highway trip below, say, 45; even with chaps, boots, etc., it gets too damn cold. But above that, not too bad, just put on the chaps, gloves, etc. Not going too far? Can do without the chaps, then.
I admit I'm a bit chicken about riding in cold anymore, may hands stiffen up. But cool is a delight. One of the finest mornings I ever had was coming back from Dallas. At highway speeds before the sun came up was a touch cool, almost uncomfortable. But the sun did come up and after that... it was wonderful. The wind was light, traffic on the interstate was light, no black&whites around, I repeat, wonderful. Especially going through the Arbuckle Mountains. Curves, uphill & down, and nobody in the way. I found that a Vulcan 750 will cruise at 80 through this with no strain, and on the level ground a throttle lock is very nice to have.
I've never had a Harley. Most of them, used in good condition or new, cost too much, and I haven't really cared for the styling; also, up 'till the last few years they tended to leak. I've owned Hondas and now a Kawasaki, the above-mentioned Vulcan, and they've all worked well. Now that Harley has solved the leakage problems I may look at one for my next bike; most of the cruiser-style bikes at other makes are big, heavy, and I don't really care for their looks.
I've been real happy with the Vulcan. In cool-cold weather, the liquid cooling lets it warm up better than air-cooled bikes I've ridden. The shaft-drive is very nice, no chain or belt to adjust and lube. The only problems I've had were a:, the seat and b: the charging system.
After one trip to Texas I swore I was going to replace the factory seat, and it now sports a Mustang; much better. And the charging system, especially in cold weather, doesn't seem up to keeping the lights running and the battery at full charge. I've found a site that has a fix for the electrical problem, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
I do wish more after-market parts people made stuff for the 750; I'd really like some hard saddlebags, but the Kawasaki ones are small and won't hold much, and I haven't found any others that I can be sure would fit without a lot of fiddling.
Come spring, I'll be putting on new radiator hoses and a new clutch, and with any luck next summer will find me at Sturgis. I'd like to see that rally.
Neat sites & links
Just ran across FreedomSight, if anyone's out there they ought to take a look. It includes the following quote:
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the constitution they don't like."
Alan Dershowitz
and a link to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.
He also had a nice takedown of one of those clowns who claims to be for gun ownership, and then goes on to say all the guns he thinks should be banned.
I'm sitting here adding these because it's raining lightly- again- and the fog has developed, and it's the fifth or sixth day in a row with some level of rain, and the bloody grass is going to have to be mowed again /if it ever dries out/ and I can't fire the forge, and .... to quote somebody, "Just Damn!"
Froggy Ruminations, a blog by a former SEAL and customs agent. Good stuff here.
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the constitution they don't like."
Alan Dershowitz
and a link to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.
He also had a nice takedown of one of those clowns who claims to be for gun ownership, and then goes on to say all the guns he thinks should be banned.
I'm sitting here adding these because it's raining lightly- again- and the fog has developed, and it's the fifth or sixth day in a row with some level of rain, and the bloody grass is going to have to be mowed again /if it ever dries out/ and I can't fire the forge, and .... to quote somebody, "Just Damn!"
Froggy Ruminations, a blog by a former SEAL and customs agent. Good stuff here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)