Well this place was an excellent starting place for my blogging, but I'm moving on to a new site with a few more features.
So if you're looking for the new stuff head on over to
http://leahguildenstern.blog-city.com and bookmark me/blogroll me over there.
Ok who said this:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
and who said this:
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
And who said this:
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
If you guess was Bush Wrong answer!
The first quote was from President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
The second Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
The third Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
These quotes along with excerpts from news reports such as this ditty from the Washington Post in 1998:
"Foreign leaders and diplomats may be urging restraint on the Clinton administration in the showdown with Iraq, but a growing chorus at home is calling for stronger measures than the air attacks currently being planned, with the objective of bringing down President Saddam Hussein."
can be found at http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp.
I guess Iraq isn't just a lie driven war started by Bush. Or maybe its ok to strike Iraq as long as it's a Democrat in power.
Boy, talk about short term memory.
Ok, I keep on hoping some of the more popular bloggers out there will view this and recommend it, but something should be said out here on the blogosphere about this movie. So here is my contribution to the cause.
Innocents Betrayed is a powerful documentary which is a must see. It is about genocide in the 20th century. (Some of which is continuing into the 21st century.)
The JPFO put together this 58 minute documentary and it is powerful. In this video they show the progression in country after country around the world of planned genocide/population control, implementation of gun control, and then the murder of the people by the very government that was to protect them. The movie even travels to the USA to see the genocide and racial killings/round ups here, and the effect of gun control in the USA.
Many organizations who try to defend against anti-(jew/black/etc) isms are also anti-guns and their security awareness talks seem to imply that the best thing to do is to report things to the government (eg. FBI) or police and relying on them to protect you. Right now in the USA this is a viable option in many cases, but there is no guarantee that that will always be the case. And in many countries, depending on who/what you are this isn't an option. Self defense needs to be part of the equation even in "safe" countries like the US.
This is a very powerful video that needs more publicity and air time. Unfortunately my understanding is that "unless there is a rebutal added to the end" getting it in the theaters isn't an option. Gee..I never though Stalin and Pol Pot needed a rebuttal. And I don't remember there being a rebuttal at the end of the lies in Blowing for Columbine.
Anway, get the video/dvd and if you can promote it/get it airtime please do.
You can get it from the JPFO website here.
Or from the Gun Owners of America here
Watch it. Share it with others. Be aware.
First a light blog before the more weighty recommendation to come shortly.
My Mother-in-Law is out visiting and yesterday we took a tour of Celestial Seasonings Factory. It was a great tour and lots of fun. I highly recommend it if your up this way. You get to sample as many of their teas as you would like. They have the original artwork from the boxes that you can look at. And the factory is very cool. The peppermint room is really something. And the machinery is really fun to watch. And the whole place has a very peaceful feel.
In the mean time, my rather excessive tea collection go 4 additions. Blueberry tea, Madagascar Red Vanilla (rooibos and vanilla), Honey Darjeeling, and a pear & white tea blend.
So if you are ever up in Boulder, check it out.
So many blogs, so little time. There are lots of great blogs over on the New Blog Showcase. Here are four that I'm voting for this week.
The ordering actualy is the order that I read them in and isn't a sure indication of favor.
First of there is Irreconcilable Musings with a piece on the blogosphere front on the war on terrorism. Nice links, nice commentary. Good for thought.
Next on the hit parade is Demosophia with a piece on Totalitarianism in the modern era with a nice background. Well written, enjoyable to read and informative. I feel like I learned something and it makes me wish I had a few more history books around (or time to spend in the library. Alas, much of that education has been dimmed by years of computer science, and more brushing up on my part is needed.
My third vote is here at the Captain's Quarters He has a great blog on Zareed Zakaria's writing where he somehow thinks that the whole Musslim/Arab hatred is because of our Christian outlook on things. Anyway, he explains it well. Go check it out.
Lastly, a little less political commentary (although I haven't read all of her blogging) we have ATtheHEARTofIT. This piece is the authors weekend in review. A busy women tells us, with pictures, about the weekend. Nothing shocking and earthshattering, but a real life and an enjoyable read. A nice counterpoint to remind you that there is life out there.
There you go, my votes/recommendations. Go and enjoy.
Well blogeasy does have comments, but it doesn't seem to have a blogroll. I'm debating what to do about this, and taking suggestions.
In the mean time I thought I should let you know about a cool contest over on truthlaidbear.com called the New Blog Showcase.
Check them out at http://www.truthlaidbear.com/newblogshowcase.php
I just entered this blog in the showcase, and if you have a new blog (after July 29,2003) you should enter yours.
I just discovered a new cartoon called Day by Day. (New to me anyway.)
Anyway I came across this one which, although about Iraq, perfectly captures the "confused logic" I mentioned in my previous post.
In our holiday talks this weekend we got to talking about how self defense became such a "bad thing".
Think about the "Subway Vigilante", Bernard Getz. His crime was that he carried a gun when it wasn't legal for him to have/carry one. But the news played up the whole this as him "taking justice into his own hands". Excuse me, he feared for his life, he shot in self defense.
In thinking about it, and since I came from a semi "anti-self defense" point of view, is that the logic behind it is a confusion of the concept of separation of powers. The concern is that a person who act in self defense is acting as "Judge, Jury and Executioner". And furthermore, the murder/rape/assault often hasn't happened before the person defends themself. So the logic goes "What happened until innocent until proven guilty, and shouldn't these 'powers' be separate?" How can someone defend themselves, especially by shooting which can kill the attacker.
This from the same society that plasters "guilty celebrities" all over the papers before they have come to trial.
The thing is, in self-defense it isn't about judging a crime after the fact. It is about preventing the crime from occuring. If it was after the fact, and the crime had been committed then it is true one person shouldn't be able to be "judge, jury and executioner". But crimes can and should be prevented, and a victim shouldn't have to die/be raped/be assaulted for the criminal to be stopped. Self defense is justifiable and right (and a right). By threatening a life that attacker moved from being a human being to being rodef, one who can be killed.
After the fact, the crime can no longer be stopped. The action that would be justified in prevention may not be justified as punishment. But while the crime can still be stopped force is justified, even if it means taking a life.
To deny the right to self defense is to create a situation like in England where more than 100 people who defended themselves sit in prision while their attackers go free and have even been able to sue for "losses from inability to work", as a criminal.
The logic is a simple slip in time and not recognizing the difference between prevention and punishment. The problem is that confusions like this can become widespread (have become widespread) and the danger of what can come from this, where criminals have more rights than the victims means that the logic should be corrected.
If you have a chance, talk with someone about this today. And if they are confused about the difference between prevention and punishment, see if you can get them to think about it and realize the difference.
Over on packing.org there this article http://www.packing.org/talk/thread.jsp/16379/ where an employee of Disney World is writing his representative because he has been told by his employer that even with a CCW he is prohibited from carrying his gun on property or even having a gun in his car.
In the comments Richard G points out that RKBA and property rights are equal in the Constitution and since Disney World is private property they can prohibit carry on their property (but not in the guys car, as it is his private property.)
Now I don't know about the legal analysis of Richard G, but I find it interesting that many places seem to be passing no-smoking ordinances that result in prohibiting restaurants and bars from allowing their patrons to smoke. And these ordinances stand. The argument is that they are "public areas". Now it seems to me that restaurants are private property just as much as Disney World, and Disney World is a public area just as much as a restaurant. Why is the "right to a smoke free environment" greater than the right to bear arms?
The smoke free environment I don't recall being a true G-d given right (further enumerated in the Constitution.) Furthermore, if the person doesn't want a smoking environment why not vote with their feet and let the establishments know that they aren't coming to their restaurant because of the smoke. If there are enough people to vote a law like this into existance there are enough consumers to pressure a decent number of restaurants to decide that there is a business case to be smoke free. And since smoking isn't a right they can ban smoking just like they can say "No shirt, no shoes, no service".
On the other hand RKBA can be as much of a saftey issue as "being smoke free". There are some bars and restaurants in pretty shady areas. The person carrying can be protecting their life as well as others. As a Constitutional right (further backed by State support) I don't understand why it has _less_ power of force than the desire to have a smoke free environment.
Just a random thought today. Critics are complaining that by having concealed carry laws that require "only" a background check more criminals are getting carry permits.
Not that I want criminals to be using guns, but isn't that actually good if they get permits? Now if they commit a crime they have more information on the criminal than they did before.
Besides, if someone is a criminal wouldn't it be likely that they have a record, and therefore couldn't get a permit? (And if it was a felony they aren't supposed to have a gun....so why are they getting a permit?)
In any case I still find it really hard to imagine someone saying "Oh, I haven't gotten my permit yet. I guess I won't take my gun to the robbery today."