Marriage: Looking Outward or Inward?

Marriage: Looking Outward or Inward?

via The American Spectator and The Spectacle Blog by Lars Walker on 8/9/12

You know the scenario. In a frontier settlement, far from the authority of central government, one man murders another. Then a friend or relative of the victim kills the slayer, and soon a range war sweeps across the land. Men must band together and ride out, to defend their homes and apply rough-and-ready justice.
It could be a western movie, but I was actually thinking of an Icelandic saga. There's a rumor among saga enthusiasts (I've never actually seen it documented) that Hollywood script writers used to comb the sagas for plots, back in the days when the studios were churning out oaters the same way the federal government churns out food stamps today.
But though a saga may resemble a western, there are distinct differences. One of the classic tropes of the western is the appearance of the Mysterious Stranger, who drifts into town and takes up the cause of the side with the pretty girl. Nobody knows his story, but he's a good man to have with you in a fight.
In a saga, there are no mysterious characters. You know not only who everybody is, but who their parents are, where their farms are, and (often) where their people came from back in Norway. The Icelanders cared intensely about families.
Modern writers, on the other hand (and I speak from experience here), tend to avoid extended families. Relatives just get in the way. In my own novels, several of them based on sagas, I prune the kinfolk back as far as possible, but I still have to add character lists to help the readers keep score.
Which is to say that since saga times, social reality has changed. To the Icelanders, kinship was a vital concern. Every saga was a conflict of families more than of individuals. My cousin's actions are, by extension, mine. If your cousin killed my cousin, I might just kill you, because one kinsman is pretty much as good (or bad) as another. To us, this seems ridiculous. Not only do we not want to be responsible for our cousins' actions, we don't even want to sit next to them at Thanksgiving.
The Viking way seems barbaric to us -- and it is. But in studying Viking culture, I've come to believe that (to use a formula scrounged from our liberal neighbors) "we have much to learn from our Norse friends."
The central political value for the Norseman was freedom (at least for himself and his kinsmen). The defense of freedom is an issue that rises again and again in the history of the age, as an old system based on kinship and traditional law resisted a new system based on central monarchy and imported laws. And the central bastion of this freedom -- the chief counterweight to the power of the state --  was the family. The genealogies in sagas are long because the families were big. The more relatives, the more power and security a man enjoyed, and the more axes he had available to resist oppression.
Marriage was central to that system. Though a Viking woman could not (in theory, anyway) be forced into a marriage, marriages were more the alliance of two families than the union of two loving hearts. The dynamic of marriage was that it looked outward and forward -- multiplying kinship ties, multiplying descendents through the generation of children.
One of the reasons Americans nowadays yell at each other so much over marriage is that we fail to understand this (or understand it and don't care). Those whose idea of marriage looks back to this old model (which is not exclusively Norse, but almost universal in the world in one variation or another) argue with people whose concept of marriage is purely private.
It's my observation that most of us on the traditional side do hear what the moderns are saying, though we disagree. But the other side doesn't hear us at all.
The modern idea of marriage makes it purely a private matter. Children are an accessory, and often not an important one. In-laws are not only not an accessory, but (generally) a positive drawback. Where the old idea of marriage looked outward and multiplied relationships, the new model looks inward and isolates people in pairs.
Aside from my religious scruples (which I won't get into here), my main concern in regard to the definition of marriage is that under the new model, the family is no longer the bastion of freedom. Family no longer looks out for family. Family no longer resists the king. The old kind of marriage was the original, best, and most organic social welfare system. You help a friend because you like him; you help family whether you like them or not.
It's probably no accident that a certain prominent American liberal politician, who shall remain nameless, has a half-brother living in a third world country for whom he seems to feel no obligation at all. Blood may be thicker than water, but it doesn't flow through the proper government channels.
For those who are happy to be clients of an all-powerful state, losing the family freehold is not a bug, but a feature.
For those of us who view expanding state power as a threat, the re-definition of marriage would seem to be a sign that the game is essentially over.

The Goldberg File: Being Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty

Being Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty

I recently wrote about the death penalty and I've been getting annoying feedback ever since. I'm in favor of the death penalty for people who deserve to be put to death. I very much oppose the death penalty for people who do not deserve to be put to death. I phrase it this way because so many opponents of the death penalty love to point to innocent men who were sentenced to die as if proof of error in the system invalidates capital punishment in principle. I don't know if an innocent person has ever been executed, but even if one were that outrage (and it would be an outrage) no more invalidates the death penalty than an instance of friendly fire invalidates the need for a military.

Look at it this way: If in, say, Illinois they wrongly sent a man to death row does that make the Aurora killer any less deserving of the chair? Where is the transitive property here?

But that's not even why I'm talking about the death penalty. One of the more annoying rejoinders to any discussion of the death penalty is, as one e-mailer puts it: "You f***ing wingnuts are such hypocrites, you talk about being pro-life but you have no problem killing minorities when it suits you."

I find this category error mind-boggling. Now while I'm functionally pro-life for the most part, I am not conventionally so. But that's irrelevant given the charge of plenary incompatibility of the pro-life and pro-capital-punishment positions. 

First off, when a fetus shoots up a movie theater or rapes and kills a little girl or throws political dissidents into a wood chipper please be sure to shoot me an e-mail or tweet about it, because that sounds like an interesting story.

On that point, the argument against abortion hinges on the fact that it is the taking of an innocent life, often for selfish purposes. If you don't think it's a life worthy of respect that's something we can argue another day. The point here is that pro-lifers do think it is a life, an innocent life. And as I said at the outset, I'm in favor of the death penalty for people who deserve to be put to death. What has an eight-and-a-half-month-old fetus done that it deserves to be put to death? The abortion-rights position holds that the uterine-occupant's crime is that, if allowed to be born, it will potentially inconvenience or harm the mother. Obviously, the issue of harming the mother is morally significant, but the inconvenience issue is much less so.

However you want to think about all of that, what's very clear is that the moral contexts of abortion and capital punishment are very, very different.

This is a good time to invoke William F. Buckley's old line about moral equivalence. If you have one man who pushes an old lady out of the way of an oncoming bus and you have another man who pushes an old lady in front of an oncoming bus, it will simply not do to describe them both as the sorts of men who push old ladies around. Abortion renders a whole class of humans, non-human. Capital punishment says that a specific human being, one who has been proven to have taken another human life, is fit for execution. The death penalty may or may not be wrong, but to my mind it has as much in common with abortion as indexing capital gains or the infield fly rule. 

What I find fascinating is the way pro-abortion, anti-death-penalty types find this so hard to understand. Here's my theory: They think that pro-lifers suffer from magical thinking. A burning bush, or a guy in a white robe, or some mystical book told them to oppose abortion. The incantations surrounding this belief involve phrases like "sanctity of life" and "every life is sacred." And so they conclude that pro-lifers are being inconsistent by not extending the magic cloak of protection to serial killers, mass murderers, and child rapists.

Now, for some pro-lifers who also oppose the death penalty that actually is part of their argument. The "seamless garment" argument holds that all life is sacred. But it's worth noting that official Church doctrine still allows for both just wars and capital punishment.

Regardless, I'm not a seamless-garment guy. I believe that if you wantonly and brutally, with evil in your heart, tear that garment you deserve to pay for what you've done.

The Goldberg File: Freedom: It Tastes Just Like Chicken

A few quick points:

Speaking of first wives, I think it's interesting to note that Dan Cathy's original controversial statement is more pointed at the institution of divorce than at gay marriage. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

And yet it wasn't the divorced-American or the re-married-American community that rose up in outrage. It was the gay-rights community -- which apparently sees belief or rather vocal belief in "Biblical marriage" as a crime unto itself.

Speaking of gays, I think it's fascinating and horrifying that the political incentives for three big-city mayors are such that they thought this was an easy pander. After all, we know that all gays don't believe that committing such a thought crime should disqualify you from getting a business license, and yet these politicians all thought this was a gimme. One political takeaway from this, I suspect, is that the insider-clout of gay-activist donors and allies is incredibly strong within the mayoral bubble in big cities, so strong that it distorts one's perspective of the larger political climate. For hacks like Tom Menino and that crook who runs D.C. that's not too shocking, but that Rahm Emanuel was seduced by the temptation tells you something.

Last, I don't believe that everybody who waited hours for a chicken sandwich opposes gay marriage, though many surely do. My sense is that a large number of people showed up simply because they despise the glib bullying of the liberal Gleichschaltung. Rahm Emanuel, Tom Menino, and Vincent Gray (the aforementioned crook) looked for an easy way to score some points in the culture war and they inadvertently tipped their hands: They're bullies, like the gay dudes in Seinfeld who insist that everyone wear an AIDS ribbon.

charred pepper steak sauce

charred pepper steak sauce

via smitten kitchen by deb on 8/7/12


This is Alex's birthday week, which, in case you're new here, means that there's an open package of bacon in the fridge, the promise of oysters, shrimp cocktail, small-batch bourbon and babysitters on the horizon, butter and chocolate will soon align to meet their many-candled cake destiny and I, well, I bought some steak. I bet you'd imagine that a guy married to gal who likes to cook things that make people happy would be frequently entitled to his favorite food on earth, made at home, just because it's a Tuesday. Well, once every year or so, that is exactly what happens.


This is also that point in the summer where pretty much every human being I know is either at their own beach house or a guest in someone else's right now. If you're in the former category, well, la-de-dah, okay? If you're in the latter category, I know a secret: You are totally going to get invited back next year because I have just the hostess gift for you to bring. You're welcome.

... Read the rest of charred pepper steak sauce on smittenkitchen.com

---

© smitten kitchen 2006-2012. | permalink to charred pepper steak sauce | 69 comments to date | see more: Meat, Peppers, Photo, Quick, Summer

pink lemonade bars

pink lemonade bars

via smitten kitchen by deb on 8/3/12


Last year, not seconds after putting the final touches on what I certain was The Lemon Bar To End All Lemon Bars, a recipe intended for that little cookbook I wrote, I couldn't quite change the station and became immediately absorbed in making something I wanted to call a pink lemonade bar. They'd be as awesome as a summer carnival, the kind that rolls into town with sketchy rides that your parents forbid you to go on but you do so anyway (or so a friend once told me!), or maybe a play date at the friends house whose mom served prettier, thus cooler, lemonade than what you had at home. I had great plans for these bars, I just had one tiny problem: I had no idea what made pink lemonade pink.


I don't mean that I am naive; I was aware that in 99 percent of the iterations of pink lemonade out there, the pink was supplied by food dye. I was also bummed to learn that some other people had thought to make pink lemonade bars first — being the type who still clings to the silly notion that there are new, uncharted waters to bake our ways through — but the vast majority of the recipes called for red food dye too. Surely, before pink lemonade was made with red food dye, it was made with a fruit of sort, like strawberry or raspberry or cherries, right? Since last summer, this article has been written but even it doesn't come to a singular conclusion as to what should make pink lemonade pink. The only thing that is apparent among its discussions of clothing dye and red hot candies is that if you can make it with something natural and/or tasty, you're probably improving upon its lineage.

... Read the rest of pink lemonade bars on smittenkitchen.com

Jared Diamond on Western Civilization: 'You Didn't Build That'

Jared Diamond on Western Civilization: 'You Didn't Build That'

via The American Spectator and The Spectacle Blog by William Tucker on 8/8/12

When Mitt Romney made his remarks about culture accounting for the differing success made by Palestinians and Israelis in cultivating the meager resources of the Eastern Mediterranean, he was immediately pounced upon by the entire liberal world.

In response, Romney made a reference to Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond's 1996 Pulitzer-Prize-winning analysis of why different parts of the world have progressed at different rates. Diamond, being a good academic, fired back immediately with an op-ed in the New York Times in which he charged, "This is so different from what my book actually says that I have doubt whether Mr. Romney read it."

I also have doubts Romney has actually read the book because if he did, he wouldn't be enlisting it to his cause. Diamond's argument is completely dismissive of cultural achievement and reduces history to the impersonal causes. Quite simply, Diamond's argument is the academic equivalent to President Obama's now-famous remarks to the founders of small businesses: "You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Diamond's message to America and Western Civilization is, "You didn't build that. Something else made that happen." That something else is what he calls "biogeography."

I read Diamond's book about four years ago after all the Pulitzer Prizes had been awarded and frankly I never read such of mass of nonsense in my life. I wanted to register my objection but there was no logical place to put them. Now that it has become a campaign issue, I'm happy to have the opportunity.

Diamond's answer to why Europe and America have become so remarkably prosperous while most of the rest of the world has lagged, comes down to two words: "dumb luck." Rather than any of the cultural achievements that have characterized Western civilization -- the Judeo-Christian tradition, the respect for intellectual attainment, the rule of free institutions and individual rights -- Diamond says it's all a matter of "biogeography" -- what kind of plants and animals you had in your neighborhood and how easily they travelled from one region to another.

His main thesis, believe it or not, is that the Eurasian landmass, stretching from Gibraltar to China, lies on a horizontal axis, while Africa and the Americas are on vertical axes. As a result, it was easier for plant species, material goods and eventually ideas to flow along the Eurasian axis than it was for them to travel in Africa and the Americas. Because of this iron law of geography, civilization developed better in Europe and Asia than it did elsewhere.

Do you see any flaws in that argument? I can think of about six to start. But let's take a moment to allow Diamond to have his full say before we begin trying to evaluate his thesis.
Diamond began his quest in the 1960s while working, not as an anthropologist or geographer or developmental economist, but as an ornithologist studying birds in New Guinea. One day, as he recounts, he ended up in a long conversation with a local politician named Yali who eventually posed him with a question: "Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?"

"Cargo," it should be noted, had been a big issue in New Guinea since Europeans and Americans arrived in great numbers during World War II. You may recall the story of the "cargo cults" that became a legend among anthropologists. Local tribesmen, seeing large airplanes landing with lots of "cargo," decided these were gods descending from the sky. Noting that these gods preferred to land on long airstrips, the tribesmen began clearing large swathes of jungle, hoping the gods would descend upon them with cargo as well. This went on right into the 1960s, when Diamond had his conversation.

Being a guilt-ridden academic far from home, Diamond could not respond as anyone else might: "It is probably our long tradition of scientific inquiry, beginning with the Greeks, that has led to our relative mastery of nature. Or maybe it was our centuries-long battle against magical thinking and superstition. Or perhaps it was the work of the great economists who struggled against popular and government opposition to free trade and commerce, arguing that exchange with other nations was the best route to prosperity -- a perception that has not entirely triumphed even today." Had Diamond been familiar with the work of Ludwig Von Mises (fat chance!), he might have refereed Yali to Human Action, the 400-page classic that brilliantly recounts the accomplishments of human ingenuity in shaping the modern world. None of this was on Diamond's radar, however, and so he set about putting together his own crack-brained theory about how vertical and horizontal axes account for the whole thing. In doing so, he was at least able to relieve every college professor in America of the embarrassment of having to defend their own culture.

Diamond's experience with Yali, it should be noted, was not at all uncommon. Practically every anthropologist who ever lived with a native tribe has been impressed at one point or another with their intelligence on specific subjects. Napoleon Chagnon, the one I happen to be reading now, is a University of Michigan anthropologist who spent twenty years living among the Yanomamo, a collection of tribes that straddle the border of Venezuela and Brazil. When he met them in the 1960s, the Yanomamo were spending all their time making war on their neighbors. Chagnon called them "the fierce people," thereby earning the opprobrium of every anthropologist in America, all of whom like to believe that that primitive peoples live in perfect peace and harmony with nature until they are corrupted by Western influences. Even among these "fierce people," however, Chagnon was constantly impressed at how intelligent his subjects could be in remembering long genealogies or intricate details from events that occurred twenty or fifty years ago.

Before the invention of writing, whole national sagas such as The Iliad and The Song of Roland were committed to memory. There are still people all over the Muslim world who have memorized the entire Koran. Human intelligence is not in short supply. It is the tasks to which this intelligence is put to that vary from one society to another. What else can we call these applications but "culture"? In fact, that would be a good definition of culture: "The tasks to which human intelligence are put in any given society."

All this had no place in Diamond's world, however. Here is his interpretation of world history as summarized in the Kirkus Review:

The long and short of it, says Diamond, is biogeography. It just so happened that 13,000 years ago, with the ending of the last Ice Age, there was an area of the world better endowed with the flora and fauna that would lead to the take-off toward civilization: that valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers we now call the Fertile Crescent. There were found the wild stocks that became domesticated crops of wheat and barley.… Once agriculture is born and animals domesticated, a kind of positive feedback drives the growth toward civilization. People settle down; food surpluses can be stored so population grows. And with it comes a division of labor, the rise of an elite class, the codification of rules, and language. It happened, too, in China, and later in Mesoamerica. But the New World was not nearly as abundant in the good stuff. And like Africa, it is oriented North and South, resulting in different climates, which make the diffusion of agriculture and animals problematic.… [A] fair answer to Yali's question this surely is, and gratifyingly, it makes clear that race has nothing to do with who does or does not develop cargo.

Now do you notice anything peculiar about this argument? How about that sentence, "But the New World was not nearly as abundant in the good stuff. And like Africa, it is oriented North and South, resulting in different climates, which make the diffusion of agriculture and animals problematic."

This "New World" being discussed here includes the United States of America, a continent-wide territory on a horizontal axis 3,000 miles wide that is now occupied by 330 million people living at the highest standard of living the world has ever known. When it was discovered by Europeans 500 years ago, it was occupied by somewhere between four and 12 million descendants of Asian immigrants scratching out a living by hunting-and-gathering or early agriculture. Does that suggest that something more than "biogeography" might be involved in the fate of nations?

The problem these academics create for themselves is that they do not seem to be able to distinguish between "race" and "culture." The two have nothing to do with each other. A culture can be adapted by any race of people and because different populations have evolved different cultures does not mean they are biologically or racially determined.

I am currently writing a book tentatively titled "Terrorism and Polygamy," which argues that monogamy -- a human construct entirely dependent on cultural norms -- has been the key factor in the peaceful progress of societies that have adopted it while polygamy -- a much more "natural" and biological determined arrangement -- has nevertheless created unstable societies characterized by great inequities and constant conflict among men. (I'm having trouble finding a publisher because, as you might expect, most houses are wary about printing anything negative about Muslims.) Chagnon's Yanomamo were fierce polygamists and frankly told him the reason they made endless war on their neighbors was that "We like women." Polygamy allows for the unlimited accumulation of women and invites constant raids of neighboring tribes.

Now consider Diamond's thesis that it was the "free passage of technology from East to West" that accounts for the progress of Europe and China. If that's all it takes, then why haven't Islamic countries -- which sit right in the middle of all this -- progressed at nearly the same rate? Could it be that Islam's sanction of polygamy has created unstable societies? And by the way, it isn't only plants, animals, and ideas that can travel East-to-West. The Mongol Hordes used this horizontal axis to conquer the largest empire in history, invading Europe in the 13th century with a cavalry line that stretched one hundred miles wide. The Mongols too were also fierce polygamists and genetic studies show that 12 percent of the current population of Tibet are direct descendants of Genghis Kahn. So is it possible that cultural norms, and not just access to neighboring societies, might be a better determinant?

There are enough ludicrous aspects to Diamond's thesis to occupy an entire Ph.D. thesis. Another of his arguments is that scientific discovery, is simply a matter of probability. The chances of discovering Newton's Laws may be only 1 in 100 million, but once you're reached enough population density, as Europe did after the Renaissance, then someone is bound to discover them. But if that is true, then how come Medieval China and India, which were much more densely populated, never produced similar ideas?

The answer, once again, is "culture." From the Renaissance onward, Europe developed a culture in which independent scientific thought was able to challenge religious and political elites, while at the same time a culture of unregulated enterprise enabled ambitious entrepreneurs to put new discoveries into practice. India and China, on the other hand, were dominated by oppressive bureaucracies that suppressed innovation and hoarded new discoveries to themselves. As Eric Hoffer pointed out long ago, by the 13th century, both India and Europe had the water wheel. In India, it was used to drive prayer wheels so Brahmins could be relieved of the task of praying every day. In Europe, it was employed to power grinding mills and eventually factories.

What's important to note, then, is that Obama tells small business owners, "You didn't build that," it is not coming out of his own head. The President is faithfully reiterating the prevailing opinion in today's academia, which is that success in building anything from new businesses to civilizations has nothing to do with individual achievement but is just a matter of circumstance and outside forces. Isaac Newton really didn't formulate those Laws of Motion, it was only the result of population density. Galileo didn't really discover the moons of Jupiter -- it was just a matter of knowledge passing from East to West.

Hopefully, the Era of Romney will be more than a period of economic revival. It will be an era when Americans are once again not embarrassed to take pride in their civilization.

So much for "voter fraud doesn't happen often enough"

From: National Review Online

3. What You Need to Know about Voter Fraud Something fascinating about voter-fraud discussions: Republicans will generally assert that we need to require voters to show voter ID to verify their identity; Democrats will charge that some voters cannot get photo ID, and this would take away their right to vote. What seems like a really sensible next step is to (a) require photo ID (b) make a serious effort to make sure everyone who wants to vote is able to get a photo ID and (c) create provisional ballots so that those who somehow can't get a photo ID but are not fraudulently voting can cast a valid ballot after their identity has been verified. The issue here isn't to make sure everyone in America has a state-issued driver's license or whatever, but to make sure everyone who casts a ballot is indeed who they say they are and that they aren't voting twice. Our old friend Byron York shares some news from a new book by John Fund and former Bush Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky: During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race. Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong. Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn't require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.

Crime rates in liberal cities shockingly higher than in conservative cities - Orlando Political Buzz | Examiner.com

Link: http://www.examiner.com/article/crime-rates-liberal-cities-shockingly-higher-than-conservative-cities (via shareaholic.com)

A few years ago, the Bay Area Center For Voting Research listed the most conservative and most liberal cities in the United States. They did this by looking at how every American city with a population of at least 100,000 voted in the 2004 presidential election. Every vote for George W. Bush was counted as a "conservative" vote, and every vote for John F. Kerry counted as a "liberal" vote. Ballots cast for third party candidates were counted similarly, with votes for the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party nominees counting as "conservative" votes, and votes for the Green Party nominee, the Peace and Freedom Party nominee, and Ralph Nader counting as "liberal" votes.

Cities with more conservative votes than liberal votes are considered conservative cities, and cities with more liberal votes than conservative votes are considered liberal cities. Cities with the highest percentages of conservative votes were deemed the most conservative cities, and cities with the highest percentages of liberal votes were deemed the most liberal cities. Simple enough.

The 15 most conservative and 15 most liberal cities are listed below, along with their violent crime rates.

The 15 most liberal cities in the US:

- Detroit, Michigan - 24 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Gary, Indiana - 15 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Berkeley, California - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Washington, DC - 13 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Oakland, California - 16 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Inglewood, California - 8 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Newark, New Jersey - 11 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Cambridge, Massachusetts - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- San Francisco, California - 7 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Flint, Michigan - 24 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Cleveland, Ohio - 14 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Hartford, Connecticut - 13 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Paterson, New Jersey - 11 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Baltimore, Maryland - 15 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- New Haven, Connecticut - 15 violent crimes/1,000 residents

The national average is four violent crimes/1,000 residents. Every one of the 15 most liberal cities in the US has a higher violent crime rate than the national average.

The 15 most conservative cities in the US:

- Provo, Utah - 2 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Lubbock, Texas - 9 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Abilene, Texas - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Hialeah, Florida - 4 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Plano, Texas - 2 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Colorado Springs, Colorado - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Gilbert, Arizona - 1 violent crime/1,000 residents

- Bakersfield, California - 6 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Lafayette, Louisiana - 8 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Orange, California - 1 violent crime/1,000 residents

- Escondido, California - 4 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Allentown, Pennsylvania - 6 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Mesa, Arizona - 4 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Arlington, Texas - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Peoria, Arizona - 2 violent crimes/1,000 residents

Again, let's note that the national average is four violent crimes per 1,000 residents. You'll notice that eight of the 15 most conservative cities have violent crime rates at or below the national average. Only two of the 15 have violent crime rates that are twice as high as the national average. The most dangerous conservative city (Lubbock, Texas) is safer than all but four of the liberal cities.

So there is a clear correlation here: Cities with a lot of violent crime tend to vote Democratic, while cities with relatively low levels of violent crime tend to vote Republican. But what is behind this discrepancy? Is it that conservative cities have tougher anti-crime laws than liberal cities, which work to deter violent criminals? Is it that conservatives are more likely to be armed than liberals, so cities full of conservative citizens act as a deterrent against violent crime?

101 Reasons Why You NEED an “Assault Weapon”

101 Reasons Why You NEED an “Assault Weapon”

via GUN WATCH by Dean Weingarten on 7/27/12

Eatontown, NJ --(Ammoland.com)-  When I was Counsel to the NJ Coalition of Sportsman I wrote this piece for the April, 1991 issue of the THE GUARDIAN which was the group's newsletter.
It was later published by Harper's magazine. Here is an updated version as the issue is being pushed again by the blood dancing anti-gunners.
A question we are all tired of hearing in the so-called "debate" over so-called "assault weapons" is, "why does anybody need one?" Here is the answer once and for all.
You need an assault weapon—

• 1. to help continue the American tradition of citizen/soldier.
• 2. for recreation.
• 3. to collect military small arms.
• 4. to get quick extra shots at more game while hunting.
• 5. to get quick extra shots at the same game while hunting.
• 6. for more fun plinking.
• 7. to defend yourself against a street gang.
• 8. to defend yourself against mob violence.
• 9. to defend yourself against looters.
• 10. to shoot in a Civilian Marksmanship Program competition.
• 11. to shoot in an "Action Rifle" or "Practical Rifle" target match.
• 12. to assist the police in an emergency (e.g. 1966 Texas Tower Sniper incident, citizens assisted with M1′s).
• 13. to help defend the country from a foreign invasion.
• 14. to help defend the country from an internal takeover.
• 15. to help the firearms industry remain economically strong.
• 16. to pay the federal tax on guns that goes to aid wildlife.
• 17. to encourage further research into new firearm technology.
• 18. to save time while shooting.
• 19. to have increased reliability in functioning.
• 20. to have a longer lasting firearm.
• 21. to have a less costly/ more affordable firearm.
• 22. to have an easier to manufacture firearm.
• 23. to have an easier to repair firearm.
• 24. to have an easier to take apart and clean firearm.
• 25. to have a more versatile firearm.
• 26. to own a highly weather resistant firearm.
• 27. to appreciate the evolution of firearm technology.
• 28. to defend your business.
• 29. to defend your home.
• 30. to defend your boat.
• 31. to defend your camp.
• 32. to defend your ranch.
• 33. to defend your farm.
• 34. to defend your family.
• 35. to have reduced recoil when shooting.
• 36. as an investment.
• 37. as a military souvenir.
• 38. as a hedge against inflation.
• 39. because criminals statistically prefer revolvers over all other firearms.
• 40. to have a more psychologically intimidating firearm. (often the mere presence of a firearm will stop a crime)
• 41. to own a firearm least likely to be used in a crime. (less than 1% are assault firearms.)
• 42. to own a firearm which purposely functions slower than other firearms thereby reducing recoil. (e.g. Remington 1100.)
• 43. to own a firearm used in Olympic competition.
• 44. to appreciate the mechanical genius of firearm designers.
• 45. to have a firearm which uses external magazines.
• 46. to shoot at the National Matches at Camp Perry.
• 47. to reject anti-gun bias.
• 48. to challenge "Big Brotherism".
• 49. to protect yourself against a pack of feral dogs.
• 50. to own a firearm better for the physically handicapped.
• 51. to save all firearms by not giving in to "salami" tactics.
• 52. to do trick shooting (e.g. multiple aerial targets).
• 53. to shoot military ammunition. (Inexpensive surplus)
• 54. to be part of an armed populous, creating a tactical disadvantage for any potential enemies.
• 55. to familiarize yourself with your country's military rifle.
• 56. to familiarize yourself with a foreign country's military rifle.
• 57. because they are interesting.
• 58. to hang on your wall.
• 59. to shoot clay targets.
• 60. to shoot paper targets.
• 61. to shoot Metallic Silhouettes.
• 62. to exercise your constitutional rights.
• 63. to exercise a natural right.
• 64. to exercise a civil right.
• 65. to exercise a fundamental right.
• 66. to exercise an inalienable right.
• 67. to exercise a human right.
• 68. to defend yourself after a New York City-type blackout.
• 69. to defend yourself against a Miami-type riot.
• 70. to defend yourself after a St. Croix-type hurricane in which both officers and escaped prisoners have run amok.
• 71. to avoid a "Tiananmen Square" in the U.S.
• 72. to own a firearm in common use and therefore protected under the Heller decision.
• 73. to protect livestock from predators.
• 74. to show support for political ideals of the founding fathers.
• 75. to own a firearm designed to wound rather than kill (according to the Dir. Of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory).
• 76. to own a firearm not readily convertible to full automatic.
• 77. to own a firearm with that "shoulder thingy that goes up."
• 78. to own a "state-of-the-art" firearm (e.g. FN SCAR).
• 79. to own a "turn-of-the-century" firearm (e.g. Borchardt).
• 80. which is more pleasant to shoot (lighter and less recoil).
• 81. because all of your other firearms will be banned next.
• 82. to own a firearm which is difficult to conceal.
• 83. to own a firearm which the media glamorizes.
• 84. to own a firearm which might be banned.
• 85. to own a firearm which is banned.
• 86. to own a firearm that is no frills and practical in design.
• 87. to own on of the most mechanically-safe firearms. (e.g. Uzi).
• 88. to own a firearm that is a "work of art".
• 89. to own a Valmet M-76 which the BATF says has no sporting use.
• 90. to own a Valmet Hunter which the BATF says has sporting use.
• 91. to own a firearm that made history (e.g. M-1 Carbine).
• 92. to shoot a firearm that made history.
• 93. to own a firearm that can be dropped and still function.
• 94. to own a firearm that can be coated in mud and still function.
• 95. to own a firearm that can be dunked in water and function.
• 96. to own a firearm that can be frozen solid and still function.
• 97. to own a firearm that can be buried in sand and still function.
• 98. to be a prepared member of the unorganized militia as defined in the US Code (10 US Code Sect. 311 (a)).
• 99. to distinguish between an object and its misuse.
• 100.because you believe in freedom.
• 101.if YOU say you need one. In America, an individual's need should not be determined by the state. There are approximately 100 million firearm owners in the country. That's 100 million more reasons for owning any firearm.

About:
Evan Nappen (www.EvanNappen.com) is a criminal defense attorney who has focused on New Jersey firearms and weapons law for over 23 years. He is the author of the New Jersey Gun Law Guide. Visit his website at www.EvanNappen.com

Charles Krauthammer: Did the state make you great? - The Washington Post

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-did-the-state-make-you-great/2012/07/19/gJQAbZOiwW_story.html (via shareaholic.com)

To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.

Are There Too Many Guns?

Are There Too Many Guns?

via John Goodman's Health Policy Blog by John Goodman on 8/1/12

The tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, has led to a lot of unfortunate misinformation about firearms. Let's try to add some facts to the justified emotion.
Full disclosure: I don't own a gun. I have no desire to own one. I don't shoot things. Especially living things. But when I was in the military, I was a sharp shooter.
Are Some Guns More Dangerous than Others? Of course. But in wake of the shootings, most commentators are incapable of sorting out what the dangers are.
The shooter in Aurora had three firearms when he entered the theater: a pump action shotgun, a semiautomatic rifle and a semiautomatic handgun.
In a closed, crowded setting like a movie theater, the shotgun was probably the most lethal of the three. Every shotgun shell can spray a half-dozen or more pellets, each capable of killing or maiming a person. Twelve-gauge shotguns often fire five shells, and sometimes more, before needing to be reloaded. And unlike semiautomatics, they don't typically jam.
Yet in most American cities, just about anybody can buy a shotgun at the drop of a hat. Antigun activists and politicians almost never propose banning them.
Instead, the focus these days is on so-called "assault weapons."
Should We Be Especially Worried About Assault Weapons? When I lie in bed at night, kept awake by fearful thoughts of all the ways a deranged person might kill me, the idea of an assault weapon rarely comes to mind. The reason: Assault weapons are not usually the weapon of choice. Neither of the two worst shooting sprees in U.S. history involved assault weapons. James Huberty, who killed 20 people at a McDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, used a shotgun, a pistol and a hunting rifle. George Hennard, who killed 22 people at a Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, in 1991, used two ordinary pistols.
Still, gun opponents seem obsessed about them. So what exactly is an "assault weapon"?
What Are Assault Weapons? You would think that the definition would hinge on a weapon's fire power or its capacity to maim or kill. Not so. Assault weapons are mainly defined by their appearance. As Steve Chapman explained the other day:

Assault weapons are functionally indistinguishable from ordinary semiautomatic hunting rifles. They don't fire more rapidly, they don't deliver more lethal rounds, and they don't spray bullets. They only look like military arms.

The features that disqualified a gun under the federal ban were ones that didn't affect destructiveness, such as pistol grips and bayonet mounts. If accused [Aurora] killer James Holmes had been prevented from buying this gun, he could have found plenty of others that would have served his purpose just as well.

Basically, what disqualified a weapon when the short-lived assault weapons ban was in effect was looking like a military weapon. The offensive features included plastic stocks, extended ammunition clips, collapsible butt-stocks, and other decorative devices that made them look like, but not operate as, a fully functional assault rifle.
Contrary to the claims that military-looking weapons are only designed to kill human beings, they are, in fact, the fastest growing segment of the hunting rifle market!
What About Machine Guns? Most TV commentators who decry assault weapons imply that they are automatic — that you just pull the trigger and bullets start flying. Not so. It has been illegal to buy a machine gun on the open market in the United States for more than 80 years. However, you can obtain one under special permit and there are about 250,000 in private hands.
Now here is something interesting: despite all those guns in private hands, there appears not to be a single instance of a legally owned machine gun being used to commit a crime throughout the entire 80 year period. This illustrates two things: (1) the bumper stickers have it right: guns don't kill, people do; and (2) we can have reasonable restrictions on access to guns without banning them altogether.
That brings us to another obsession: the insistence that guns are useless as tools of self-defense.
Are Guns Useful for Self-Defense? As it turns out, they are. According to research by renowned Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, guns are used between 800,000 and 2.5 million times every year in self-defense.
A study by John Lott and David Mustard found that handguns appear to help women more than men. While murder rates drop when either sex carries more guns, the effect is especially pronounced when women carry. Each additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women three to four times more than an additional armed man reduces the murder rate for men.
Do More Guns Cause More Crime? In the typical Western movie, everyone has a gun. When they go into a bar, they start drinking. Then, they start insulting each other. Before long, they start shooting each other. It may be good theater, but it's lousy history. Turns out, 19th century Dodge City was more peaceful than most American cities are today! Robert Heinlein explained why: "An armed society is a polite society," he wrote.
Overall, some of the most heavily-armed states have very low violent crime rates and vice versa. Also, it appears that when the good guys are armed there is less gun violence. Research by John Lott shows that allowing citizens the right to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime. In those states that passed right-to-carry concealed handgun laws, the average murder rate dropped from 6.3 per 100,000 to 5.2 per 100,000 nine to 10 years later — about a 1.7% drop in the murder rate per year for 10 years.
In states that enacted right-to-carry laws between 1977 and 1999, the overall occurrence of multiple-victim shootings dropped by a remarkable 67% with deaths and injuries from such shootings plummeting by 75% and 81%, respectively. And since 1997, two of eight school shootings were both stopped by citizens with guns (before police even arrived at the scene).
What Does the International Evidence Show? Switzerland actually requires young males to keep weapons in their homes, as part of the country's militia. Yet no one has ever accused Switzerland of being a host to Wild West shootouts. Finland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. Yet it too has a very low rate of violent crime.
Do We Need More Laws? Here is Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times:

Federal law requires large theaters to have wheelchair seating, ramps as well as stairs, and bathrooms that are accessible to the disabled. Fire codes limit audience size. Emergency fire exits must be illuminated.

We have a ratings system to protect children from nudity or offensive language. Indeed, on that horrific night in the theater last week, only one major element wasn't regulated: the guns and ammunition used to massacre viewers.

Really? Colorado doesn't have a law against carrying a loaded gun into movie theaters? How about shooting a gun in movie theaters? What about using a gun to kill people? Of course, Colorado has laws covering all these things. Kristof's solutions would keep innocent people from engaging in completely anodyne activities. Would that also prevent the criminally minded from committing crimes? Unlikely.

101 Reasons Why You NEED an “Assault Weapon”

101 Reasons Why You NEED an “Assault Weapon”

via GUN WATCH by Dean Weingarten on 7/27/12

Eatontown, NJ --(Ammoland.com)-  When I was Counsel to the NJ Coalition of Sportsman I wrote this piece for the April, 1991 issue of the THE GUARDIAN which was the group's newsletter.
It was later published by Harper's magazine. Here is an updated version as the issue is being pushed again by the blood dancing anti-gunners.
A question we are all tired of hearing in the so-called "debate" over so-called "assault weapons" is, "why does anybody need one?" Here is the answer once and for all.
You need an assault weapon—

• 1. to help continue the American tradition of citizen/soldier.
• 2. for recreation.
• 3. to collect military small arms.
• 4. to get quick extra shots at more game while hunting.
• 5. to get quick extra shots at the same game while hunting.
• 6. for more fun plinking.
• 7. to defend yourself against a street gang.
• 8. to defend yourself against mob violence.
• 9. to defend yourself against looters.
• 10. to shoot in a Civilian Marksmanship Program competition.
• 11. to shoot in an "Action Rifle" or "Practical Rifle" target match.
• 12. to assist the police in an emergency (e.g. 1966 Texas Tower Sniper incident, citizens assisted with M1′s).
• 13. to help defend the country from a foreign invasion.
• 14. to help defend the country from an internal takeover.
• 15. to help the firearms industry remain economically strong.
• 16. to pay the federal tax on guns that goes to aid wildlife.
• 17. to encourage further research into new firearm technology.
• 18. to save time while shooting.
• 19. to have increased reliability in functioning.
• 20. to have a longer lasting firearm.
• 21. to have a less costly/ more affordable firearm.
• 22. to have an easier to manufacture firearm.
• 23. to have an easier to repair firearm.
• 24. to have an easier to take apart and clean firearm.
• 25. to have a more versatile firearm.
• 26. to own a highly weather resistant firearm.
• 27. to appreciate the evolution of firearm technology.
• 28. to defend your business.
• 29. to defend your home.
• 30. to defend your boat.
• 31. to defend your camp.
• 32. to defend your ranch.
• 33. to defend your farm.
• 34. to defend your family.
• 35. to have reduced recoil when shooting.
• 36. as an investment.
• 37. as a military souvenir.
• 38. as a hedge against inflation.
• 39. because criminals statistically prefer revolvers over all other firearms.
• 40. to have a more psychologically intimidating firearm. (often the mere presence of a firearm will stop a crime)
• 41. to own a firearm least likely to be used in a crime. (less than 1% are assault firearms.)
• 42. to own a firearm which purposely functions slower than other firearms thereby reducing recoil. (e.g. Remington 1100.)
• 43. to own a firearm used in Olympic competition.
• 44. to appreciate the mechanical genius of firearm designers.
• 45. to have a firearm which uses external magazines.
• 46. to shoot at the National Matches at Camp Perry.
• 47. to reject anti-gun bias.
• 48. to challenge "Big Brotherism".
• 49. to protect yourself against a pack of feral dogs.
• 50. to own a firearm better for the physically handicapped.
• 51. to save all firearms by not giving in to "salami" tactics.
• 52. to do trick shooting (e.g. multiple aerial targets).
• 53. to shoot military ammunition. (Inexpensive surplus)
• 54. to be part of an armed populous, creating a tactical disadvantage for any potential enemies.
• 55. to familiarize yourself with your country's military rifle.
• 56. to familiarize yourself with a foreign country's military rifle.
• 57. because they are interesting.
• 58. to hang on your wall.
• 59. to shoot clay targets.
• 60. to shoot paper targets.
• 61. to shoot Metallic Silhouettes.
• 62. to exercise your constitutional rights.
• 63. to exercise a natural right.
• 64. to exercise a civil right.
• 65. to exercise a fundamental right.
• 66. to exercise an inalienable right.
• 67. to exercise a human right.
• 68. to defend yourself after a New York City-type blackout.
• 69. to defend yourself against a Miami-type riot.
• 70. to defend yourself after a St. Croix-type hurricane in which both officers and escaped prisoners have run amok.
• 71. to avoid a "Tiananmen Square" in the U.S.
• 72. to own a firearm in common use and therefore protected under the Heller decision.
• 73. to protect livestock from predators.
• 74. to show support for political ideals of the founding fathers.
• 75. to own a firearm designed to wound rather than kill (according to the Dir. Of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory).
• 76. to own a firearm not readily convertible to full automatic.
• 77. to own a firearm with that "shoulder thingy that goes up."
• 78. to own a "state-of-the-art" firearm (e.g. FN SCAR).
• 79. to own a "turn-of-the-century" firearm (e.g. Borchardt).
• 80. which is more pleasant to shoot (lighter and less recoil).
• 81. because all of your other firearms will be banned next.
• 82. to own a firearm which is difficult to conceal.
• 83. to own a firearm which the media glamorizes.
• 84. to own a firearm which might be banned.
• 85. to own a firearm which is banned.
• 86. to own a firearm that is no frills and practical in design.
• 87. to own on of the most mechanically-safe firearms. (e.g. Uzi).
• 88. to own a firearm that is a "work of art".
• 89. to own a Valmet M-76 which the BATF says has no sporting use.
• 90. to own a Valmet Hunter which the BATF says has sporting use.
• 91. to own a firearm that made history (e.g. M-1 Carbine).
• 92. to shoot a firearm that made history.
• 93. to own a firearm that can be dropped and still function.
• 94. to own a firearm that can be coated in mud and still function.
• 95. to own a firearm that can be dunked in water and function.
• 96. to own a firearm that can be frozen solid and still function.
• 97. to own a firearm that can be buried in sand and still function.
• 98. to be a prepared member of the unorganized militia as defined in the US Code (10 US Code Sect. 311 (a)).
• 99. to distinguish between an object and its misuse.
• 100.because you believe in freedom.
• 101.if YOU say you need one. In America, an individual's need should not be determined by the state. There are approximately 100 million firearm owners in the country. That's 100 million more reasons for owning any firearm.

About:
Evan Nappen (www.EvanNappen.com) is a criminal defense attorney who has focused on New Jersey firearms and weapons law for over 23 years. He is the author of the New Jersey Gun Law Guide. Visit his website at www.EvanNappen.com

Shooting Rampages End Sooner When Armed Civilians Stop Them

Shooting Rampage Statistics

via GUN WATCH by jonjayray on 8/3/12




Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics


Firearm prohibitionists love to use tragedy to leverage their agenda. So, it's important for gun rights advocates to stand their ground and fire back (proverbially) whenever this happens.


Last week I posted a graphic on Facebook claiming the average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 18.25, and the average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by civilians is 2.2. I based it on 10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere. I honestly don't even remember where. I presented the case studies in a blog post on the Silver Circle blog and I did the math myself.


The graphic was met with great enthusiasm and much skepticism. Leave it to Facebook users to demand an audit on a meme. So, I started over, only much more meticulous this time. I compiled and analyzed 93 shootings, noting my methodology, and I am now prepared to present my findings, complete with links to the data. But here's a spoiler… It's not that different.


More here

'You didn't build that' resonates because it was insulting and dismissive

'You didn't build that' resonates because it was insulting and dismissive

via PrairiePundit by Merv on 7/31/12

Josh Barro:

Jonathan Chait says the president's "you didn't build that" speech revived racial resentmentsabout redistributive fiscal policy, partly because the president was speaking in a "black dialect."

Maybe this was a problem with the speech, but the key problem was much simpler: The president was needlessly insulting. He wasn't just calling on successful people to pay more in tax but was being dismissive of their accomplishments.

I agree with David Frum that the most toxic part of the speech is Barack Obama talking about the sources of success:

I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

Really? The president is always struck by people who take credit for their own successes? Obviously, every successful outcome in life -- and every failed one -- arises from a combination of internal and external factors. But the president's tone when he said this, amused by the very idea of people taking credit for their achievements, was off-putting.

Frum mostly talks about why this statement irks rich people, but I believe it resonates badly with people at all income levels. Lots of people -- most, I hope -- are proud of something they've achieved in their lives and feel like that achievement owes much to their own hard work and talents. You don't have to make over $250,000 a year to be annoyed when the president mocks people for taking credit for their achievements.

And it's an especially jarring statement because of what it's used to justify -- higher taxes, with the implication being that they are called for because people do not deserve their own pre-tax wealth. People are rightly unnerved by an argument that amounts to "we can tax you because you didn't deserve this anyway." Faced with such an argument, defending your own contribution to your success isn't just a point of pride -- it's an argument you must make to defend the principle that you are entitled to your own private property.

... 

Barro goes on to chastise Chait for his goofy suggestion that the reaction was based on race.   He points out that Scott Brown made similar attacks on Elizabeth Warren for making similar remarks.  He purported Indian heritage was not a factor in the ad.  I think the "You didn't build that" attacks will continue to resonate with business owners.

I suspect that Obama cops this attitude because so much of his own success was undeserved.

MercatorNet: Marriage, religious liberty, and the “grand bargain”

Link: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/marriage_religious_liberty_and_the_grand_bargain (via shareaholic.com)

It was only yesterday, was it not, that we were being assured that the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex partnerships would have no impact on persons and institutions that hold to the traditional view of marriage as a conjugal union? Such persons and institutions would simply be untouched by the change. It won't affect your marriage or your life, we were told, if the law recognizes Henry and Herman or Sally and Sheila as "married."

Those offering these assurances were also claiming that the redefinition of marriage would have no impact on the public understanding of marriage as a monogamous and sexually exclusive partnership. No one, they insisted, wanted to alter those traditional marital norms. On the contrary, the redefinition of marriage would promote and spread those norms more broadly.

When some of us warned that all of this was nonsense, and pointed out the myriad ways that Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and others would be affected, and their opportunities and liberties restricted, the proponents of marriage redefinition accused us of "fearmongering." When we observed that reducing marriage to a merely emotional union (which is what happens when sexual reproductive complementarity is banished from the definition) removes all principled grounds for understanding marriage as a sexually exclusive and faithful union of two persons, and not an "open" partnership or a relationship of three or more persons in a polyamorous sexual ensemble, we were charged with invalid slippery-slope reasoning. Remember?

No one, they assured us, would require Catholic or other foster care and adoption services to place children in same-sex headed households. No one, they said, would require religiously affiliated schools and social-service agencies to treat same-sex partners as spouses, or impose penalties or disabilities on those that dissent. No one would be fired from his or her job (or suffer employment discrimination) for voicing support for conjugal marriage or criticizing same-sex sexual conduct and relationships. And no one was proposing to recognize polyamorous relationships or normalize "open marriages," nor would redefinition undermine the norms of sexual exclusivity and monogamy in theory or practice.

That was then; this is now.

Citizens United v. FEC

Text of the ruling
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf


--

The Wheel of the Year: Now available on Amazon Kindle

The Official Manual for Spice Cadets: Now available on Amazon Kindle

Gun Fights

Gun Fights

via The Weekly Standard Blog by Geoffrey Norman on 7/26/12


It was inevitable that after the massacre in a Colorado movie theater, the matter of gun control would come up and that the president would weigh in on the subject. And, according to this report by Michael A. Memoli in the Los Angeles Times, he has:

Acknowledging sensitivity of the issue, [the President] said he nonetheless believes that even gun owners would agree "that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of children." He offered no specific proposals but referred to background checks to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, and preventing guns from getting into the hands of the mentally unbalanced. Previous efforts to do the same have been thwarted by political opposition and the reluctance of sympathetic elected officials to take on the National Rifle Assn., among the nation's most potent lobbying forces.

But most comment and analysis seems to indicate that not much will happen and the reason for this is, according to E.J. Dionne, "[a] profound timidity on the part of politicians in both parties."
Dionne is a reliable indicator of elite, liberal, beltway opinion and his argument deserves consideration, not least because gun control is an issue about which a lot of people have very serious beliefs. Which explains the "timidity" of those politicians. People who are opposed to gun control vote their convictions. It is easy to blame the NRA for this, which, predictably, Dionne does. But the "gun lobby" would not exist or, certainly, would not be able to reduce so many politicians to a state of timidity if it did not represent the strongly held beliefs of millions of people, not all of whom are members of the NRA.
It might be interesting for Dionne and others in his business to ask themselves why this is so.
It begins with fairly small distinctions and arguments and escalates to much more serious concerns.
People for whom guns and the Second Amendment are serious matters tend to react strongly to arguments about how "AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of children." In the first place, where did "the children" come into the picture?  Who, exactly, favors arming the children? More important, though, is the implication that there are nice guns and bad guns and that the people who favor gun control only want to regulate the latter. The "assault rifles" and such. The aim should be, according to Dionne, to "ban automatic weapons."  
To which one says, "They are already illegal."
The arguments about banning only certain kinds of guns are troubling precisely because the people making them don't understand guns and don't want to. Assault rifles, automatic weapons ... it is all the same to them. Ban 'em all. To repeat a distinction that has been made many, many times, when you pull the trigger on an automatic weapon, it will continue firing until you release the trigger or you have fired the last round and the weapon is empty. It is illegal for most civilians to own such weapons. A semi-automatic weapon requires a separate trigger pull for each round fired. Civilians can own, for instance, an AK-47 that is configured for semi-automatic fire only. Millions of soldiers and terrorists around the world carry AK-47s configured for automatic fire. Either way, the AK-47 is a scary looking weapon. And that, in the minds of many who argue for gun control, is the definition of an "assault rife," an otherwise meaningless term.
But the argument for banning "assault rifles" is troubling to supporters of gun rights not just because it is uninformed. The problem, in their minds, is much graver than that. It gets to the notion of a "legitimate use" of guns. Which, those in favor of gun control generally concede, includes hunting and target shooting.
If gun rights are about nothing more than hunting and target practice ... well, then, the battle is lost, according to people who are absolutists on the Second Amendment to the same degree that Dionne, no doubt, is on the First. Free citizens do not own guns because the government has granted them permission to hunt deer and bust clay pigeons. Or even because the government has conceded that it cannot entirely keep the peace and people may need guns for self-defense. The pro-gun rights position is that gun ownership by free people is a check on the government and a defense against tyranny. It's that simple and was summed up by George Orwell when he wrote,

Even as it stands, the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage, is the symbol of democracy.  It is our job to see that it stays there.

The pro-gun, Second Amendment position is that it is not merely possible to have a society where citizens are free to own guns but necessary if that society is, indeed, to be free. And that gun ownership does not necessarily lead to a dangerous unlawful society.
This last point is crucial and the argument is easy enough to make by citing the examples of Chicago and Vermont (where I live).
Chicago has plenty of guns. Most of them, doubtless, illegal since the city has, on its books, some of the most severe anti-gun legislation in the country. However, people are routinely killed by guns in Chicago and many of the victims are, by the way, "children." Much of the killing is done by gang members who like to arm themselves with "assault rifles," to include AK-47s, some of them converted so they will fire automatically. Illegal, of course, but in a society that is approaching a state of nature, who cares?
Vermont also has plenty of guns. I do some shooting at an old gravel pit and it is routine to see people shooting AK-47s and other "assault rifles" there. None of them "children," however. No permit is required for concealed carry in Vermont. And the state has a very low crime rate. Second lowest in the nation, according to one of its senators.
Finally, pro-gun rights people wonder just what they could expect in return for compromising on what is, for them, a fundamental issue. What kind of enforcement can we expect if we pass new gun laws? Drugs are illegal and we have a DEA to enforce the laws. We still have lots of drugs and corruption. Illegal immigration is ... well, illegal. We have a big agency of the government that is charged with enforcing immigration laws and securing the border. And we have a lot of illegal aliens. We already have, in fact, an agency of the government that is supposed to deal with violations of federal firearms laws. And the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms engaged in a program by which guns were purchased illegally, shipped across an international border, and used in the commission of crimes to include the murder of a federal law-enforcement officer.
So even a gun-rights supporter who might be wiling to bend a little wonders just what Leviathan would accomplish in the way of reducing crime if it had new authority and new laws to work with. He does not share the faith of Dionne and others in the ability of the government to do much more than make itself larger and more intrusive and, in many cases, exacerbate the very problems it sets out to solve.
Which is tolerable, if barely, in the case of many things the government does ineptly and expensively. Airport security comes to mind. But not when we are dealing with fundamental things.
Like the Second Amendment.