Now the debate over the Virginia Tech shootings has shifted, very predictably, into a debate over whether the US should institute Eurpoean-style gun laws. As if that would have prevented this tragedy.
It is true that Cho Seung-Hui never should have been allowed to buy a gun. He had a history of mental-health issues, which should have easily been picked up by a background check, disqualifying him from being able to purchase any kind of firearm. But the assertion that banning all guns will prevent gun crimes is unrealistic and unhelpful. It may prevent a few gun crimes, but it will make people defenseless against criminals who obtain guns illegally, and will make robberies all the easier and more common. This has been a problem across England - they instituted a gun ban, and are now faced with robbery rates that rise every year. Washington D.C. instituted a gun ban, and they have one of the worst crime rates in the U.S. Why? Because criminals know that they can get away with muggings and robberies because no one is allowed to carry a gun.
In the aftermath of this tragedy, it would behoove the State of Virginia to institute more thorough background checks, and possibly mental health screening for potential gun owners, but banning guns, besides being Constitutionally questionable, will solve absolutely nothing.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Act 1: Finger Pointing
Yesterday, Virginia Tech was faced with a terrible tragedy when a student opened fire on other students, killing at least 30 and injuring several others.
Just hours after the incident, the finger-pointing had already begun. Before all of the next of kin could be notified...even before all of the victims, or even the shooter, could be identified.
Now the questions are flying: why did the president of Virginia Tech wait so long before instituting a campus-wide lock down? Why was there a two-hour gap between the initial shooting and the lock-down? Is this horrific incident the fault of the president & head of security of Virginia Tech because they didn't immediately lock the entire campus down?
This discussion is inane and childish; it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people, and it is an insult to the president and head of security of Virginia Tech.
From what I have gathered from reports I have heard and read about this incident, the initial shooting was the result of a domestic dispute between the shooter and his girlfriend; It is suspected that, Cho Seung-hui, the shooter, got into an argument with his girlfriend because he suspected that she was cheating on him. An arbiter was sent to try and resolve the argument; Cho shot both his girlfriend and the arbiter.
This was the initial incident that campus police responded to. At first, it appeared to be a murder-suicide; after further investigation it looked more along the lines of a double-murder, but even at that point there did not appear to be much cause for a campus-wide lock down, because the killer had fled; there was little, if any, reason to suspect that he was still on campus.
Information now coming out of the investigation shows that Cho had been planning this shooting for some time - he bought one of the guns just over a month ago; sections of chain similar to that used to chain the doors of the building where the shooting occurred were found in Cho's dorm room. There is also speculation that Cho was the one who called in the bomb threat to Virginia Tech last week, so that he could gauge how, and how quickly authorities would respond, so that he could plan accordingly.
There is no evidence to support assertions by the press that this tragedy is somehow the fault of Virginia Tech's president or head of security. It was not the fault of school administration; it was not the fault of gun laws. It was the fault of a deeply disturbed student, determined to take the lives of others. To the press, I say this: Let the parents, relatives, and friends of these kids mourn their dead, and rejoice for those who were spared. To start pointing fingers and trying to assign blame to school administration and security, or to turn this tragedy into some sort of political debate is irresponsible, callous, and inexcusable.
Just hours after the incident, the finger-pointing had already begun. Before all of the next of kin could be notified...even before all of the victims, or even the shooter, could be identified.
Now the questions are flying: why did the president of Virginia Tech wait so long before instituting a campus-wide lock down? Why was there a two-hour gap between the initial shooting and the lock-down? Is this horrific incident the fault of the president & head of security of Virginia Tech because they didn't immediately lock the entire campus down?
This discussion is inane and childish; it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people, and it is an insult to the president and head of security of Virginia Tech.
From what I have gathered from reports I have heard and read about this incident, the initial shooting was the result of a domestic dispute between the shooter and his girlfriend; It is suspected that, Cho Seung-hui, the shooter, got into an argument with his girlfriend because he suspected that she was cheating on him. An arbiter was sent to try and resolve the argument; Cho shot both his girlfriend and the arbiter.
This was the initial incident that campus police responded to. At first, it appeared to be a murder-suicide; after further investigation it looked more along the lines of a double-murder, but even at that point there did not appear to be much cause for a campus-wide lock down, because the killer had fled; there was little, if any, reason to suspect that he was still on campus.
Information now coming out of the investigation shows that Cho had been planning this shooting for some time - he bought one of the guns just over a month ago; sections of chain similar to that used to chain the doors of the building where the shooting occurred were found in Cho's dorm room. There is also speculation that Cho was the one who called in the bomb threat to Virginia Tech last week, so that he could gauge how, and how quickly authorities would respond, so that he could plan accordingly.
There is no evidence to support assertions by the press that this tragedy is somehow the fault of Virginia Tech's president or head of security. It was not the fault of school administration; it was not the fault of gun laws. It was the fault of a deeply disturbed student, determined to take the lives of others. To the press, I say this: Let the parents, relatives, and friends of these kids mourn their dead, and rejoice for those who were spared. To start pointing fingers and trying to assign blame to school administration and security, or to turn this tragedy into some sort of political debate is irresponsible, callous, and inexcusable.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Will they ever get it right?
The Democrats have yet to begin drafting a new bill to give US troops in Iraq the funding they need. As a result, the Army has had to slow down on needed repairs until they can be assured that they will get the money necessary for their continued campaign.
It seems to me that the Democrats in Congress are doing just what they accused President Bush of doing early on in the war, when they accused him of not giving the troops the supplies that they needed. They accused the President of not providing needed body armor or armor for vehicles. Now, without the funding that they need, the Army cannot complete the repairs they need. How does this make the Democrats any better than the villian they daily accuse President Bush of being?
These Congressmen, who from the beginning have claimed to "support the troops without supporting the war" are now supporting neither. Their pork-laden war funding bill, replete with conditions requiring troop withdraw, was tantamount to begging for a Presidential veto, and it was all done for political reasons, so that they could then blame the President for the lack of war funding.
The Democrats have also claimed from the beginning that the war in Iraq is "another Vietnam," and now they are truly trying to make it so. The aftermath of the US withdraw from Vietnam was a slaughter: the killing fields in Cambodia, Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge - hundreds of thousands of people dead who didn't have to die. Now, the Democrats want to pull our troops out of Iraq, the foreseeable results of which will be the deaths of millions. The possibility of a greater war and ethnic cleansing throughout the Middle East would be a major threat - almost an inevitability. If the Democrats can accomplish that, then all of their dire predictions and comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam will finally come true.
Millions will die, but at least the Democrats will have been right.
It seems to me that the Democrats in Congress are doing just what they accused President Bush of doing early on in the war, when they accused him of not giving the troops the supplies that they needed. They accused the President of not providing needed body armor or armor for vehicles. Now, without the funding that they need, the Army cannot complete the repairs they need. How does this make the Democrats any better than the villian they daily accuse President Bush of being?
These Congressmen, who from the beginning have claimed to "support the troops without supporting the war" are now supporting neither. Their pork-laden war funding bill, replete with conditions requiring troop withdraw, was tantamount to begging for a Presidential veto, and it was all done for political reasons, so that they could then blame the President for the lack of war funding.
The Democrats have also claimed from the beginning that the war in Iraq is "another Vietnam," and now they are truly trying to make it so. The aftermath of the US withdraw from Vietnam was a slaughter: the killing fields in Cambodia, Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge - hundreds of thousands of people dead who didn't have to die. Now, the Democrats want to pull our troops out of Iraq, the foreseeable results of which will be the deaths of millions. The possibility of a greater war and ethnic cleansing throughout the Middle East would be a major threat - almost an inevitability. If the Democrats can accomplish that, then all of their dire predictions and comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam will finally come true.
Millions will die, but at least the Democrats will have been right.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Pelosi: Dangerously Close to Illegal
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and moon bat extraordinaire, has definitely been busy. After pushing through a pork-laden war funding bill doomed to face a Presidential veto, she then traveled to Syria, where she met with Syrian dictator-in-chief Bashar al-Assad. It's unclear just what went on between Pelosi and Assad while she was in Syria, but there is quite a bit of speculation that there were some backdoor dealings leading up to the release of the British Royal Marines taken hostage by the Iranian military.
Now it is looking more and more likely that Pelosi will be traveling to Iran. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), who accompanied Pelosi to Syria, has indicated that he is eager to go to Iran, and has been trying to get a visa for 10 years. A top member of the Iranian parliament has stated that they are ready to talk with Speaker Pelosi. Obviously, this is because Pelosi is much more likely to capitulate to the Iranians' demands.
By traveling to Syria as she did, Pelosi came dangerously close to violating the Logan Act - a felony offense. The Logan act was passed for a reason - it is paramountly important that the United States government present one unified foreign policy stance. America's laws state that our foreign policy is to be determined by the Executive branch, primarily via the State Department. Many Americans oppose President Bush's foreign policy decisions, but presenting a single, unified foreign policy stance to the world is much, much more important than any party's political differences. If Pelosi is allowed to make unauthorized foreign policy decisions, it will potentially threaten the very fabric of our government, especially if Pelosi makes promises that President Bush and the State Department are not willing to fulfill.
Pelosi is playing at an extremely dangerous game here, and she'd do best to play carefully.
Pelosi has also been commenting on the President's impending veto of the bill funding the Iraq War. According to Pelosi, President Bush wants a "blank check" for the war. The truth is, the spending bill churned out by what Pelosi said would be one of the most ethical and open Congresses in US history was filled to the brim with pork-barrel spending. It truly is a disgraceful piece of legislation, and extremely worthy of a veto. Before the House's recess, Pelosi neglected to appoint negotiators to draft a new war spending bill...and she has called a letter by Republicans, urging her to reconvene the House in order to get this legislation moving a "political stunt."
The truth is that the Democrats are against the war, so they have decided to play their own political games with the war...and now Nancy Peolosi is trying to play games not only with US foreign policy, but with the very structure of the US government.
Now it is looking more and more likely that Pelosi will be traveling to Iran. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), who accompanied Pelosi to Syria, has indicated that he is eager to go to Iran, and has been trying to get a visa for 10 years. A top member of the Iranian parliament has stated that they are ready to talk with Speaker Pelosi. Obviously, this is because Pelosi is much more likely to capitulate to the Iranians' demands.
By traveling to Syria as she did, Pelosi came dangerously close to violating the Logan Act - a felony offense. The Logan act was passed for a reason - it is paramountly important that the United States government present one unified foreign policy stance. America's laws state that our foreign policy is to be determined by the Executive branch, primarily via the State Department. Many Americans oppose President Bush's foreign policy decisions, but presenting a single, unified foreign policy stance to the world is much, much more important than any party's political differences. If Pelosi is allowed to make unauthorized foreign policy decisions, it will potentially threaten the very fabric of our government, especially if Pelosi makes promises that President Bush and the State Department are not willing to fulfill.
Pelosi is playing at an extremely dangerous game here, and she'd do best to play carefully.
Pelosi has also been commenting on the President's impending veto of the bill funding the Iraq War. According to Pelosi, President Bush wants a "blank check" for the war. The truth is, the spending bill churned out by what Pelosi said would be one of the most ethical and open Congresses in US history was filled to the brim with pork-barrel spending. It truly is a disgraceful piece of legislation, and extremely worthy of a veto. Before the House's recess, Pelosi neglected to appoint negotiators to draft a new war spending bill...and she has called a letter by Republicans, urging her to reconvene the House in order to get this legislation moving a "political stunt."
The truth is that the Democrats are against the war, so they have decided to play their own political games with the war...and now Nancy Peolosi is trying to play games not only with US foreign policy, but with the very structure of the US government.
This isn't about Imus
Imus is gone. CBS fired him yesterday, making him now unemployed, since MSNBC sacked him earlier this week. But the truth is, this controversy is not truly about Don Imus and his comments.
Since the beginning of this controversy, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have been paraded across America by the mainstream media, condemning Imus and stirring people up against Don Imus. But yesterday, the true agenda behind this came out.
Let's be fair to Imus. What he said was wrong. He's admitted it was wrong. But if he deserved to be fired, it shouldn't have been over this, because let's face it: Imus has been saying things more offensive than this for a long time. If Imus deserved to lose his job for being offensive, CBS should have given him a pink slip back in the '80s. But this isn't about Imus, it's about starting a wildfire that will sweep across the nation. The only question is who will get burned.
Jackson and Sharpton have been out in the media saying that Imus is just the beginning. The leftist media is encouraging them to start a witch-hunt against conservative talk radio. Keith Olbermann is even making a list of all of the conservative talk radio hosts that he wants sacked, complete with outrageous & out-of-context quotes.
If this incident, which is shaping into the beginnings of a crusade, were to take a positive track, it would turn toward the rap music industry, wherein things many times worse than what Imus said are thrust into our society through television and radio on an hourly basis (and CBS, who canned Imus, is part of the parent company of MTV, who airs that trash).
But the leftists in America, particularly in the media, are trying to push the debate away from trashy rap music and into conservative talk radio. To them, conservatism itself is offensive, and on that basis alone, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Jerry Doyle, and Bill O'Riley should all be fired. And with the way this "debate" is taking place, all it takes is someone sitting by his radio, recording every show, looking for any quote that can be taken out of context, twisted, and exploited, and Jackson and Sharpton could very easily whip the ignorant masses into a frenzy and shut conservative talk radio down (besides, if Jackson & Sharpton's own standards would be applied to them, their own anti-Semitic comments would have them rendered irrelevant in no time at all).
The truth is that this is a crusade against free speech. Conservatives have a huge platform in talk radio - a platform that liberals have been unable to stand on commercially. They have most of television and print media, but liberal saturation of part of the media isn't enough for them - they also have to shut their opponents down. That is what this incident is truly about.
Since the beginning of this controversy, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have been paraded across America by the mainstream media, condemning Imus and stirring people up against Don Imus. But yesterday, the true agenda behind this came out.
Let's be fair to Imus. What he said was wrong. He's admitted it was wrong. But if he deserved to be fired, it shouldn't have been over this, because let's face it: Imus has been saying things more offensive than this for a long time. If Imus deserved to lose his job for being offensive, CBS should have given him a pink slip back in the '80s. But this isn't about Imus, it's about starting a wildfire that will sweep across the nation. The only question is who will get burned.
Jackson and Sharpton have been out in the media saying that Imus is just the beginning. The leftist media is encouraging them to start a witch-hunt against conservative talk radio. Keith Olbermann is even making a list of all of the conservative talk radio hosts that he wants sacked, complete with outrageous & out-of-context quotes.
If this incident, which is shaping into the beginnings of a crusade, were to take a positive track, it would turn toward the rap music industry, wherein things many times worse than what Imus said are thrust into our society through television and radio on an hourly basis (and CBS, who canned Imus, is part of the parent company of MTV, who airs that trash).
But the leftists in America, particularly in the media, are trying to push the debate away from trashy rap music and into conservative talk radio. To them, conservatism itself is offensive, and on that basis alone, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Jerry Doyle, and Bill O'Riley should all be fired. And with the way this "debate" is taking place, all it takes is someone sitting by his radio, recording every show, looking for any quote that can be taken out of context, twisted, and exploited, and Jackson and Sharpton could very easily whip the ignorant masses into a frenzy and shut conservative talk radio down (besides, if Jackson & Sharpton's own standards would be applied to them, their own anti-Semitic comments would have them rendered irrelevant in no time at all).
The truth is that this is a crusade against free speech. Conservatives have a huge platform in talk radio - a platform that liberals have been unable to stand on commercially. They have most of television and print media, but liberal saturation of part of the media isn't enough for them - they also have to shut their opponents down. That is what this incident is truly about.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Nuclear Iran: Now Closer than Ever
Ironically enough, shortly after Britain's hostages were released by the Iranian government, Iran has declared that it will expand its uranium enrichment program. This makes perfect sense for Iran, given the lukewarm response to Britain's hostage crisis, and the PR & propaganda win that the incident was for Iran. And given the world's response to Iran's recent actions, which at best could only be considered grievous diplomatic insults, and at worst are overt acts of war, I wonder whether Iran has any reason to fear retribution of any kind following this announcement.
England's response to Iran was weak, especially considering that the facts were on their side, and they had indisputable proof of that. Add to that the fact that the British Marines folded and gave in to the Iranians' demands, telling the world that they had been captured in Iranian waters, and it's bad news for the West. Many are calling these soldiers heroes, but it is hard for me to think of them as such, given the cowardice they showed under true pressure. In past wars, soldiers have faced far worse than blindfolds, interrogations, and threats of execution. In World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam, our soldiers faced brutal torture - water boarding, bamboo shoved up under fingernails, regular beatings, and interrogations and threats of execution. They suffered, and some even died, and they still didn't give the enemy what they wanted. That is what makes a hero. Yet, in today's society, when political correctness and avoiding conflict are considered more heroic than standing up for your nation, whatever the cost, these soldiers are considered modern heroes.
This incident is in the public eye because it got a lot of press, but our true heroes rarely get mention.
These British sailors, along with England's and the world's weak response to this act of aggression, have given our enemies even more confidence. It is no coincidence that Iran has publicly announced that it is expanding its efforts to enrich uranium, and it wouldn't surprise me if HAMAS, Hezbollah, or some other radical Islamist organization started kidnapping soldiers in the wake of the West's great show of weakness.
England's response to Iran was weak, especially considering that the facts were on their side, and they had indisputable proof of that. Add to that the fact that the British Marines folded and gave in to the Iranians' demands, telling the world that they had been captured in Iranian waters, and it's bad news for the West. Many are calling these soldiers heroes, but it is hard for me to think of them as such, given the cowardice they showed under true pressure. In past wars, soldiers have faced far worse than blindfolds, interrogations, and threats of execution. In World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam, our soldiers faced brutal torture - water boarding, bamboo shoved up under fingernails, regular beatings, and interrogations and threats of execution. They suffered, and some even died, and they still didn't give the enemy what they wanted. That is what makes a hero. Yet, in today's society, when political correctness and avoiding conflict are considered more heroic than standing up for your nation, whatever the cost, these soldiers are considered modern heroes.
This incident is in the public eye because it got a lot of press, but our true heroes rarely get mention.
These British sailors, along with England's and the world's weak response to this act of aggression, have given our enemies even more confidence. It is no coincidence that Iran has publicly announced that it is expanding its efforts to enrich uranium, and it wouldn't surprise me if HAMAS, Hezbollah, or some other radical Islamist organization started kidnapping soldiers in the wake of the West's great show of weakness.
Monday, April 02, 2007
SC jumps on the global warming bandwaggon...
The US Supreme Court ruled today that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases, saying that they fall under the Clean Air Act's definition of "air pollutant." According to Justice Stevens: "The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized."
The Supreme Court was right in one thing: global warming is a very serious problem. It's not a serious problem for the reasons the Court cited, though. Global warming is a serious problem because it is a vehicle for government regulation and socialism. Liberals have been trying to over-regulate businesses for years now; it looks more and more like global warming will be the vehicle whereby they will finally get their wish - and with laws like the Kyoto Protocol, this is not just a movement toward socialism within the US - it is a move toward global socialism, regulated and run by the United Nations.
The other bothersome aspect of global warming is that it is inherently anti-progress. You'd think the self-labeled "progressives" would see how foolish they look, advocating for a position that essentially seeks to eradicate every technological advance in the 20th and 21st Centuries (electricity is evil, cars are evil, incandescent light bulbs are evil, plastic shopping bags are evil, and on and on). And organizations like PETA are even advocating veganism in the name of saving the environment...because cow flatulence is apparently destroying the planet. If cow farts are so hazardous to the environment, we should re-write history, praising the men who nearly eliminated the world's population of buffalo as America expanded westward - after all, if cow farts are so deadly, I'm shocked that the buffalo didn't kill us all a thousand or two years ago.
The truth of it is that global warming is a theory driven by emotionalism, shoddy science, and a lust for greater government control. The lust for government control has existed for some time, but finally, the socialist Left has found a way to get its wish: the regulation of every aspect of people's lives in the interests of "saving" the planet.
The Supreme Court was right in one thing: global warming is a very serious problem. It's not a serious problem for the reasons the Court cited, though. Global warming is a serious problem because it is a vehicle for government regulation and socialism. Liberals have been trying to over-regulate businesses for years now; it looks more and more like global warming will be the vehicle whereby they will finally get their wish - and with laws like the Kyoto Protocol, this is not just a movement toward socialism within the US - it is a move toward global socialism, regulated and run by the United Nations.
The other bothersome aspect of global warming is that it is inherently anti-progress. You'd think the self-labeled "progressives" would see how foolish they look, advocating for a position that essentially seeks to eradicate every technological advance in the 20th and 21st Centuries (electricity is evil, cars are evil, incandescent light bulbs are evil, plastic shopping bags are evil, and on and on). And organizations like PETA are even advocating veganism in the name of saving the environment...because cow flatulence is apparently destroying the planet. If cow farts are so hazardous to the environment, we should re-write history, praising the men who nearly eliminated the world's population of buffalo as America expanded westward - after all, if cow farts are so deadly, I'm shocked that the buffalo didn't kill us all a thousand or two years ago.
The truth of it is that global warming is a theory driven by emotionalism, shoddy science, and a lust for greater government control. The lust for government control has existed for some time, but finally, the socialist Left has found a way to get its wish: the regulation of every aspect of people's lives in the interests of "saving" the planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)