Expat Texan

‘Cause it’s true.

Or at least it WOULD be funny, if not for the fact that an international news organization has dropped all pretense of objectivity in a quest to be sure their preferred candidate is elected in November.

Background here.

But it’s gonna be GOOD!

Bill Whittle has always been one of my favorite essayists.  If you’re unfamiliar with the name, then you should head on over and browse.  Allow plenty of time - you’ll probably be there a while.

Typical leftist gone wild.  Blah, blah, blah - don’t hate the military, just Bush’s illegal war.  Don’t you dare question my patriotism, etc.  Gore Vidal is a disgusting man - in oh so many ways.

Asked what he thinks of McCain, Vidal calls him a “disaster,” then tells Deborah Solomon, “Who started this rumor that he was a war hero? Where does that come from, aside from himself? About his suffering in the prison war camp?”

Solomon replies: “Everyone knows he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.” To which Vidal responds: “That’s what he tells us.” (my emphasis)

I would pay good money to see a Vidal-McCain cage match.  It would be short, but maybe Vidal would suffer just a fraction of the pain the McCain went through.  An “author” who never risked anything in his life denigrating a man who fought and paid a heavy price to preserve the freedoms that Vidal takes for granted.  Like I said - disgusting display by the oh so brave Vidal.

Shocking, I say!

Reactions to the script from the biographers were mixed. They said specific scenes are largely based in fact but noted that the screenplay contains inaccurate and over-the-top caricatures of Bush and his inner circle.

…

Jacob Weisberg (”The Bush Tragedy”) was skeptical about Stone’s claim that he wants to make “a fair, true portrait” of Bush. “His saying he is going to be fair to Bush is like Donald Trump saying he is going to be modest,” Weisberg quipped.

One wonders what will happen if Stone does release his Bush-bashing masterpiece before November.  Does it demoralize, or energize, the Republican base?  Assuming, of course, more than 1,000 people nationwide actually pay to go see it.

I’ll pander to the base, no matter what damage it does to my presidential aspirations.

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

Perhaps Obama should have checked with Al Gore before dismissing the concerns of gun owners in the US.  You know, the Al Gore who would have won the 2000 presidential election if he had managed to carry his home state of Tennessee?

While Tennessee has moved to the right in national politics, Mr. Gore has moved to the left since his days as a congressman, particularly on issues like abortion and gun control that have put him at odds with many Southern voters. If he had not, Professor Geer said, ”He could still have carried Tennessee, but he would never have gotten the Democratic nomination.”

Hmmmm.  So Gore had to move to the left on gun control to get the Democratic nomination, but doing so cost him his home state and the Presidency of the USofA.  Wonder if he sees that as a good trade-off?

I know many Canadians don’t understand America’s “gun fetish”.  But there is a large segment of the population that sees the Second Amendment as an important part of our history and our birthright.  Add that to the fact that no study has ever shown a benefit to gun control laws, and you wonder about the need of politicians to make these kinds of vacuous statements.  More innocents will get shot in altercations?  How does a situation in which my attacker is armed while I am not make me safer?

If you bother to read the CDC brief linked to above - be sure to note the disclaimer:

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

When you actually read the white paper, you will find that “insufficient evidence” means that the data didn’t turn out the way they thought it would, so more study is needed.  And you have to love the caveat that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.  In other words - the data doesn’t show ANY benefit to strict gun control laws, but that shouldn’t dissuade you from believing the dogma that more gun control = less violent crime.  In fact, the obverse seems to be true.  Yes, I know that Newsbusters is despised as a “right wing rag”.  But the data in the article is culled from reliable sources.  So, if you’re inclined to dismiss the article out of hand because of the source, then at least try and put your bias away for a moment and look at the data.

Table 4 – Violent Crime Rate Averages, 2005[9]

Population    Violent Crime    Homicide    Rape    Robbery    Assault

RTC                    394.4                 4.8          35.6         93.6       260.4

Non-RTC           504.0                 6.9          28.1       173.2       295.7

Pct Difference        27.8               43.8         (21.1)        85.0         13.6

(RTC = right to carry a concealed firearm, expat)

Look at homicide and robbery - a pretty significant percent difference between RTC and non-RTC regions.

Think that’s a fluke?  Well, if more gun control = less violent crime, the England must be a utopian garden of peace and tranquility, right?  Well, not so much.

Britain has the most severe “gun control” laws in the world. Not even members of the British Olympic Shooting Team are allowed pistols. The British are reduced to registered single- and double-barreled shotguns, and the maximum permitted shell load is birdshot.

According to the arguments of gun-control advocates, Britain should be safe and crime free. But, alas, violent crime and robberies have skyrocketed. Gunfights between rival immigrant gangs caused the revolution in British policing. In Robin Hood’s Nottinghamshire, constables now patrol in pairs armed with semi-automatic pistols. They are backed up by armed-response vehicles (ARVs) stocked with submachine guns.

If gun control makes society safe, why was it necessary to overthrow British police tradition, arm police with semiautomatic weapons and provide machinegun backup? As a test case in gun control, Britain proves it to be a total failure. The result is exactly the one predicted by the National Rifle Association: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

In Britain, a man’s home may be his castle where the king of England cannot enter without a warrant, but robbers and rapists enter at will. It is easier and less risky for a criminal to have his way with a victim in the privacy of the victim’s home than in public. Gun control has made home invasion safe for criminals.

The right to self defense is universal, and universal rights are not up to governments to grant, but rather to uphold.  Some, however, disagree.

McCain’s son is in the military, but he doesn’t speak much about it.  So he must be maintaining some secretive code of silence.  I can’t even pretend to be surprised, much less amazed, any more.

All too typical of the paper of record - the New York Times.

But, as we know, McCain can’t expect even fair, unbiased treatment in the run-up to November.  What say you now, Angry Journalist #3519?

Note to Angry Journalist #2927 - perhaps people can’t tell the difference between “real” media and bloggers is because real media has dedicated itself to dressing up cause motivated (political, environmental, you name it) opinion pieces as “reporting”.  You know, just like us guys sitting around in our boxers typing this stuff you disdain so much.

Angry Journalist #2927:

I’m angry I got plagiarized by a blogger, and that other bloggers picked up “his” story. I’ve posted comments on the original and related blogs, linking to my story. But, what else can I do?

Fucking bloggers. And I don’t mean sites that have a staff or some kind of level of accountability, or are done by reporters working for news organizations, or are just purely entertainment/gossip news. But for God’s sake: Why do readers think that some guy in his boxers sitting on his mom’s couch can give them better news? It must come back to the fact that news organizations have done such a poor job, due to layoffs, mismanagement, and outsourcing customer service, that the average reader really can’t tell the difference anymore.

Fuck.

And what do you mean “plagiarized by a blogger”.  Do you mean some guy grabbed your work and is presenting it as their own?  Well, there is some redress for that.  Do you mean some guy cut and pasted bits of what you wrote, interspersed with his/her personal observations?  That’s a fish of a different flavor entirely.