Hanoi Jane’s at it again. Maybe we can stop her at the border….? Nah, the Canadians probably don’t want her either……

Originally posted by Korwyn

If the North Koreans (i.e.–Lil’ Kim) keep spouting off like this, God help all those innocent people that idiot dictator is going to get killed. I’ve got news for him, doesn’t he realize who he’s mucking around with? Sure, Japan is a tiny little nation, relatively small in population, but for Christ’s sake! They nearly conquered all of Asia by themselves! Ok, I know they’re just not the same now (read: imperialistic), but they’ve got some really big friends, with some really big guns, who have a whole lot of money tied up over there. I don’t think even the U.N. would sit on their hands if Lil’ Kim tried to attack Japan. Bad move, little buckaroo!

Originally posted by Korwyn

the game is over

Oh just go to One Hand Clapping! His page is full of them!

Groups representing the state’s restaurants, hotels and motels are not terribly happy about a new proposal that would allow people with gun permits to carry their weapons into places where alcoholic beverages are served, even though they would be prohibited from drinking.

As someone who has a carry permit in the State of Tennessee, I’ve pondered this for a while. The proponents of the bill say that it’s for safety, as a gun is more likely to be stolen from a vehicle parked in a restaurant parking lot than a person. The bill also provides that people packing in restaurants can’t drink.

My solution to the problem would be basically the same as the rules for drunk driving. I think that allowing people to carry into establishments that serve alcohol would be fine. But if a person is carrying while intoxicated, they should be subjected to the same (even stiffer) penalties of those driving while drunk. As it stands now, a permit holder can have a gun in his possession and be legally drunk. Unless this person is driving or in a place where he is forbidden from carrying (government property and places where alcohol is served), he’s not violating the law. That seems a bit ludicrous. I think it should be illegal for a person to be in possession of an arm while drunk. We don’t want drunk folks packing pistols while walking the streets. Of course, I’m certain such a person would be charged with some combination of public intoxication and reckless endangerment. I do, however, doubt that is enough.

Don’t drink and pack!

Saddam is dead. No, he’s not. Saddam is dead. No, he’s not. Saddam is dead. No, he’s not. Saddam is dead. No, he’s not. Saddam is dead. No, he’s not.

WMD found in Iraq. No, they weren’t. WMD found in Iraq. No, they weren’t. WMD found in Iraq. No, they weren’t. WMD found in Iraq. No, they weren’t.

The market is down. The market is up. The market is down. The market is up. The market is down. The market is up. The market is down. The market is up.

Dubya is evil, No, he’s not. Dubya is evil, No, he’s not. Dubya is evil, No, he’s not. Dubya is evil, No, he’s not. Dubya is evil, No, he’s not.

Ad infinitum.

A precedent for getting the second amendment into the Supreme Court:

In 2001, in the case of U.S. v. Emerson, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) ruled that firearms ownership is an individual right, subject to certain reasonable restrictions. This ruling was handed down a few months after Attorney General, John Ashcroft, issued a public statement announcing that the Second Amendment clearly protects the right of individual(s) to keep and bear arms. A writ of certiorari for a Supreme Court hearing was denied for this case.

In 2002, in the case of Silveira v. Lockyer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii) rendered a ruling that the Second Amendment does NOT apply to individuals.

We now have a situation where the law of the land in the Fifth Circuit is diametrically opposed to the law in the Ninth Circuit. Considering that this is a federal Bill of Rights issue, it is in the best interest of our nation for the Supreme Court to render a final ruling that applies to all.

Determine spending after you know the revenue sources and amounts.

Bredesen also wants to establish scholarship values annually, instead of setting them in the bill as both the Senate and House versions now do.

Just think, business has operated like this since forever.

Kermit rolls a fatty.

During the 90s, when the Democrats had control of the government, there was The Crazy. The Crazy consisted of right wingers and their claims of the impending New World Order, various (and often unfounded) murders/scandals of the Clinton administration, and the emergence and opposition to Political Correctness.

Now, we live in The Return of The Crazy. The left is now making very similar claims about the government since their boys aren’t in control anymore.

* The New World Order has become American Imperialism. Instead of UN world control, it’s US world control.

* The various murders/scandals of the Clinton administration have become Big Oil motivation, plutocracy, and corporate takeover. It’s not Lewinsky, it’s Halliburton.

* The emergence and opposition to Political Correctness has become the emergence and opposition to Patriotic Correctness. It’s not banning the Confederate flag, it’s the Dixie Chicks and Pearl Jam.

Of course, the loudest voices in The Crazy and The Return of The Crazy are often the extremists. And the people eat it up and it fuels party politics.

People are divided so much by party that they can’t effectively deal with issues. Our rights are being slowly whittled away right out from under us all the while we are arguing over who is doing it.

Kevin links to this post by Calpundit that touches upon why some people are liberal. Calpundit says:

I believe that the purpose of government (and civilization in general) is to force people to act like decent human beings even if they don’t want to.

Kevin says:

That is part of the reason why I am a liberal, because I believe the rules of society can, eventually, set the internal “rules” for individuals.

It is also why the current nasty incarnation of conservatism bothers me so much. If you reward nasty, brutish, unsociable behavior, then you will get nasty, brutish, unsociable people. If you weaken the social contract, you create a society with a set of rules that allows for unpleasant behavior to be seen as acceptable.

SayUncle says:

A premise that our government is based on is minimal impact of said government into the lives of citizens. The Constitution does not grant citizens rights. The Constitution assumes that these rights are God-given (or natural for you atheists, maybe the better term is preexisting) and serves to limit the government’s ability to infringe on these rights.

In essence, Kevin and Calpundit are stating that because a few people can’t handle or abuse their preexisting freedom, that the government needs to intervene by force. This is the type of thinking that leads to the infringement of our rights. In addition, it sets a precedent that the many must suffer for the few. Or that many must pay for the few.

The facts are that no matter what sort of social contract is in existence, there will be people inclined to abuse their rights and the system. And you can not legislate around that in every instance. What should society do? Instead of taking a shotgun approach to solving the problem (i.e., mandating penalties for everyone), an effort should be made to identify the specific abusers and punish them instead of the whole population.

Kevin, you’re no longer leaning left, you fell left and hit your head.

Buy a gun in spite of Michael Moore Day is one week from today. I ordered this little kit here.

Local law enforcement agencies are forming a partnership for Homeland Security.

The partnership is called the East Tennessee Homeland Security Council. Police, fire, and law enforcement from a 75-mile radius of Knox County can offer their expertise or specialty, like a bomb squad or aviation unit.

Looks like we may finally have gotten Saddam. I guess we’ll know more very soon.

On a related note, did anyone else catch Letterman? He had this to say about the war in Iraq: “Iraq’s elite Republican Guard is doing so badly they’re changing their name to the Democratic Guard.” Too true.

Originally Posted by Korwyn

The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would shield the gun industry from liability lawsuits.

The NAACP is blaming gun manufacturers for deaths and claming that gun violence disproportionately kills poor, urban blacks and it accuses gun companies of not doing enough to stop it. So, following the great American tradition, it is suing gun manufacturers.

Other NAACP claims:

. . . African-American males between the ages of 15 and 24 are almost five times more likely to be injured by firearms than are white males in the same age group.

The reality, of course, is that gun violence doesn’t kill black people. Black people kill black people:

. . . while blacks make up only 12 percent of the population, they account for 46 percent of total violent crime and 90 percent of the murders of other blacks.

The NAACP is abusing the passive verb tense quite a bit, claiming gun violence is responsible for deaths. Neither gun manufacturers nor gun violence are responsible for black folks killing black folks. It takes the will of a human being and their finger to pull a trigger. It is a conscious thought. Guns are not roaming the country side on their own shooting black folks arbitrarily. The black community and the failures of its leadership are responsible for the disproportionate numbers of deaths from guns. This kind of fallacious thinking of blaming objects is absolutely asinine. Of course, it’s better than the NAACP admitting that it has failed to educate the black community. It’s also better than black community leaders admitting they are, in fact, ineffective at dealing with the problems of the black community (like drugs, poverty, and gun violence). It’s easier to blame others and rally support against an imaginary foe than to proactively change mindsets, which, you know, requires effort.

Now, if I wanted to sue all black people, that would be ludicrous. As is suing gun manufacturers. Now, someone will call me a racist.

Somebody stole Bjorn’s blog name!

The UN now knows of a slaughter in the Congo. They also knew about Rwanda, Uganda, and Iraq. So, I don’t expect them to do much. The UN is making itself ineffectual.

I am right now listening to Eugene Volokh on the Mancow show talking about affirmative action. You’d think Volokh would have announced it on his blog or something. As you can guess, neither he nor Mancow are for affirmative action.

Planted one tree
Mulched four trees
Planted fourteen non veggie producing plants
Planted nine herbs and spices (fresh rosemary, yum!)
Built a new dog door
Assembled one workbench (for building ARs on)
Carpeted my screened-in porch
Mowed
Weed ate (weed eated?)
Vacuumed
Swept the house
Did a load of dishes
Drank 17 beers & 5 glasses of Bowmore’s
Disposed of excess lumber
Soaped and scrubbed my porch
Planted two bushes
Mulched two bushes
Oh yeah, mulched those 14 plants too
Placed sod at portions of my yard that pupster had dug craters in
Made two trips to Lowe’s and two to Home Depot
Spent $472 on those four trips
Carpeted a walkway through the garage to our cars
Met three of my new neighbors
Built a tomato garden
Planted seven tomato plants
Planted one green pepper plant
Walked the dogs
Played tug, fetch and ball with same dogs
Had some kickass chicken wings at friend’s house

And I’m spent.

Never say that to a police officer at a sobriety checkpoint. Last night, after dinner, the Mrs. and me were heading home. On Alcoa Highway, there was a roadblock set up for sobriety checks.

First, these things piss me off because they are blatantly a violation of civil rights.

Second, I’m not stupid enough to actually say anything like: Thank you for randomly harassing me tonight, officer! to the officers involved because then I would go to jail (they’d trump up something, or just harass me).

A sobriety checkpoint is clearly a violation of fourth amendment rights. But, some judicial officials decided at some point (and I am not making this up) that because each person traveling on a road is equally likely to get stopped, that this practice is legal. So, as long as we infringe on the rights of everyone equally, we can do it.

Let’s apply this theory to other rights, like speech. Is this a precedent for saying that all citizens can’t say a particular phrase, such as: I’m dissatisfied with sobriety checkpoints? Since it applies to all of us, I guess they could. Of course, I’m taking it out of context I guess. I am, after all, not a lawyer. But they do that to guns don’t they? After all, you can’t have certain guns and that applies to everyone.

Of course, they warn you with big signs about a mile in advance, so all the drunk people could turn off and take an alternate route well before getting there. So, it was ineffective. In addition to violating civil liberties, it wasted 15 minutes of my life because traffic was stopped and backed up a pretty good way. Bah!

Bubba alerts us to the fact that the Blount County School Board has rejected books that discuss evolution but not creationism. Mrs. Uncle and me moved to Maryville because they have the best school system in the state. Apparently, that was in terms of funding and ratios and not in terms of teaching children useful and objective things. Teaching children about God and religion is a personal matter and should not be incorporated into public education. This is 2003, right?

A vegan couple was charged with neglect and convicted for allowing their child to be malnourished. It was on the parents’ vegan diet and weighed 10 pounds at 15 months. Unbelievable.

I’m watching live on TV pictures from the Baghdad airport that is clearly under US control. At the same time, footage of Iraq’s DisInformation Minister telling Iraqis that the Republican Guard has retaken the airport. Now we see why Al Jazeera was kicked out of Baghdad. You’d think they may want to maintain some credibility, even at home.

Looks like it was made after the war broke out, but it’s not too recent. Also, given his tendency to use doubles, the world may never know.

Rubber duck races and raffles would be OK, but bingo and casino games wouldn’t be under a recommendation from a joint legislative committee. And this is only with respect to charity gambling. I suppose the fact that someone somewhere may have a good time while supporting a good cause is unacceptable.

But let’s bring on that state run gambling! Our lawmakers can’t wait to get their hands on some lottery money.

An Iraqi Lawyer tipped off coalition forces to the whereabouts of PFC Lynch.

Looks like it.

American troops claim to have found thousands of boxes of white powder at an industrial site south of Baghdad.

Update: The powder was explosives.

The EU demanded a UN role in post war Iraq. I recommend the role of one of those background actors that say things like soda water & rutabaga to make a restaurant in a movie look bustling. Which is pretty much what the UN has done in the past.

Powell was noncommittal. One bright spot, he didn’t tell them to fuck right off.

I’m not sure I do anymore. Ask this guy!

The state Appellate Court has ruled invalid the warrants used to arrest a Farmington gun collector and seize his legally-registerd weapons in 1999. (sic)

The search warrant identified specific guns, known to police because they were legally registered.

A search warrant was issued to search for legally owned and registered guns. Why would they need to search for legally registered guns? In addition, the victim, Thomas Walczyk, incurred legal fees of $40 – $50K. Sad times when you must spend that much cash to uphold your rights. The guns haven’t been returned yet either, and I’d bet one cold beer that Mr. Walczyk will have to sue to get them returned and incur more legal expenses.