Jeff has apparently waged comic war against Oliver Willis. Just scroll away, funny stuff, unless you’re Oliver.

The comment thread of pointing out that Libertarian Girl is not a girl (and we knew she wasn’t Libertarian) has someone named Bob D accusing me of being her, err, him. While I’m flattered that someone thinks I pulled a fast one, it isn’t me.

Not the first time I’ve been accused of it.

Matthew Greene sums up the recent Connecticut Supreme Court decision:

What if the government could condemn your house and the rest of the houses in your neighborhood, and then give them to a development company to put a hotel and some office space in their place because your town had fallen on hard economic times?

Well according to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, that’s a perfectly acceptable use of the government’s eminent-domain powers.

He’s thankful that the Supreme Court will hear the case. I’m not so certain the Supreme Court will do the right thing.

I had my doubts but it seems my inkling was right that Libertarian Girl is neither. And, of course, the best evidence is here.

I said I thought it was possible North Korea had nukes. Phelps disagrees. A lot.

There’s a push for it:

Imagine this crime reported in your local news:

Police bust a guy for possession of pit bulls. They find the canines concealed in his truck after it’s checked by a pit-bull-sniffing dog. They say the pit bulls have an estimated street value of $5,000 — or more, as the dogs’ price may be boosted by Georgia’s banning them.

Banning pit bulls is the aim of Georgia House Bill 78. The proposal’s what people in the dog business call “breed-specific legislation,” as is any regulation targeting certain breeds, like if legislators tried to run all Rottweilers out of the state.

The author of the article notes:

This unleashes the question of whether you can have a breed-specific ban on dogs that aren’t a breed. Apparently you can, as H.B. 78 puts all possible pit bulls in the same pen, like this:

“The term ‘pit bull’ means any dog that is an American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds.”

If you haven’t heard, North Korea has said they have nukes. They could be lying, of course. But the more frightful likelihood is that they probably aren’t. To sum up the diplomatic situation, I defer to Varifrank:

I hate it when you’re playing poker and you’re only holding a pair and someone calls your bluff and that’s just what happened. We’ve been warning of “dire consequences” for the last four years. We told them to get into 6 part talks with China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and the US, “or else”.

And now the North Koreans just said “Or else what?”

You should read the whole thing. He notes that NK’s options with the nukes are to use them or sell them, if they haven’t sold them already.

This is some bad joo-joo.

Or maybe I do. In addition to strapping RFIDs on kids, Blake reports that the US House approved on Thursday a sweeping set of rules aimed at forcing states to issue all adults federally approved electronic ID cards, including driver’s licenses. Says Blake:

Once you start down this path, there is no turning back. You start with a national ID card, someone figures out a way around that…then they put RFID in the cards (if they don’t start out with that), and someone gets around that. Next thing you know, it will be required that all citizens who want to fly, access certain areas of the “Federal” government, or buy firearms have a chip implanted so that we definitely know who they are.

But wait…wouldn’t that be the perfect way to stop identity theft? Yeah…then let’s require that all citizens who want to buy and sell goods on the open market to have this chip implanted.

You see where I’m going with this? It’s only the beginning. It all sounds good up front, but the near term benefits don’t come close to easing the long term loss of privacy and liberty.

In a follow up to this, I’d venture to guess that if Republicans continue this big government, jackpot congress stuff that the next couple of elections could swing to the Democrats or at least allow them to gain some ground. For round two:

The Republicans could maintain their political sway in the United States if only they would . . .

More thoughts?

Comments in a couple of threads keep getting sent to my spam filter and I didn’t know why. Finally figured out that these comments contained the word socialism. The word socialism contains the word cialis, a spam word for a pill that gives you woodies.

I forgot where I read it (think it was a comment at some blog) but some Republican supporter stated essentially that now that the right had successfully taken back the White House, Congress and the Media, the next step was universities to get rid of liberal brainwashing. Some on the right seem to think they’ve won and the pax romana will endure. I don’t think I agree. If the Rs continue this big government trend, their run will be brief if there’s any party at all that can compete. The Democrats, currently, can’t do that. They’re too busy licking their wounds. The Ds were trounced in the last two elections cycles and it may be good for that party. Maybe they’ll distance themselves from the far left and I bet Michael Moore doesn’t get any more invites to their parties.

The Democrats are currently the obstruction party. They’re trying to stop Social Security reform, judges and other things. They haven’t really presented what they want to do other than to say we want to stop Republicans from their evil plan to kill puppies, starve old people, and ruin the environment. Well, that’s how their message comes across any way.

And, as I’ve said before, the Democrats are becoming a regional party.

Fûz, in addition to pointing out From the point of view of individual rights and the free market, the GOP may be second-rate firemen, but the Donks are first-rate arsonists, has a little game to play:

“The Democrats could be a resurgent political force in the United States if only they would,” [fill in the blank with your favorite killer policy prescription].

He lists a few ideas and notes that the Dems could embrace, like the second amendment and property rights. My suggestions:

Treat gun rights seriously

Stop catering to the loons (the right should do this too, by the way)

Value property rights

Value capitalism

Stop running candidates that suck

Realize that the people are taxed too much

Get serious about the war and actually develop, you know, a position

What are your thoughts?

The push is on again:

Howard County Delegate Neil Quinter is introducing legislation today that would ban rapid-fire, military-style assault weapons in Maryland.

I can’t find the bill at their site but I imagine it’s just a ban on weapons that look like rapid-fire, military-style assault weapons, since the ban on rapid-fire, military-style assault weapons has been in effect since 1986.

Proposed breed specific legislation banning pit bulls in New Mexico died in committee:

But pit bull breeders and others told the committee breed-specific bans would not survive court challenges.

Robert Cortese, a pit bull breeder from Tajique, said Beffort’s bill would burden the state with impounding thousands of innocent dogs “while doing nothing to protect the public.”

From one of my friends:

The difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism collapses under corruption and capitalism thrives on it.

Via Bubba, we learn that a California school is requiring students to wear radio frequency identification badges that can track their every move:

The system was imposed, without parental input, by the school as a way to simplify attendance-taking and potentially reduce vandalism and improve student safety. Principal Earnie Graham hopes to eventually add bar codes to the existing ID’s so that students can use them to pay for cafeteria meals and check out library books.

But some parents see a system that can monitor their children’s movements on campus as something straight out of Orwell.

As they should. Some more:

“There is a way to make kids safer without making them feel like a piece of inventory,” said Michael Cantrall, one of several angry parents who complained. “Are we trying to bring them up with respect and trust, or tell them that you can’t trust anyone, you are always going to be monitored, and someone is always going to be watching you?”

Cantrall said he told his children, in the 5th and 7th grades, not to wear the badges. He also filed a protest letter with the board and alerted the ACLU.

Graham, who also serves as the superintendent of the single-school district, told the parents that their children could be disciplined for boycotting the badges — and that he doesn’t understand what all their angst is about.

“Sometimes when you are on the cutting edge, you get caught,” Graham said, recounting the angry phone calls and notes he has received from parents.

Each student is required to wear identification cards around their necks with their picture, name and grade and a wireless transmitter that beams their ID number to a teacher’s handheld computer when the child passes under an antenna posted above a classroom door.

Egad. Up next, finding a way to permanently affix the badges?

Weekly gun links are up.

Actual headline:

Boy Charged With Bringing Deadly Weapon To School

The boy had an air rifle. He had this one to be exact. It’s a deadly weapon firing plastic or steel B.B.s at a speed of 213 ft/second. I’m not saying that the kid should have brought it to school (he shouldn’t have) but charging him with carrying a deadly weapon is quite a stretch.

Looks like the VPC has teamed up with the usual anti-gun politicos to push for a federal ban on 50 Caliber Anti-armor Sniper Rifles:

The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today joined Representatives Jim Moran (D-VA), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), and Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) at a Capitol Hill press conference in support of federal legislation sponsored by Rep. Moran to ban 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles. Fifty caliber anti-armor sniper rifles can penetrate armor plating, pierce rail cars carrying toxic chemicals, and destroy aircraft. An ArmaLite AR-50 sniper rifle was displayed at the press conference.

You can read about 50 caliber lies here.

there was “insufficient evidence” to determine whether any of the federal, state and local gun laws reviewed had an effect on gun-related deaths, violent crimes, suicides and other outcomes.

The study, conducted by American Journal of Preventive Medicine, notes first that:

Despite a proliferation of gun registration requirements, bans on specific firearms and “zero tolerance” policies for guns in schools over the past three decades, the jury is still out on whether these laws help prevent gun violence

The study also concludes that more study is needed. This is standard operating procedure anymore. They can’t get the result they want so they must continue studying until they can. The study was done using data from 1979 through 2001. One note from me:

The studies included laws to ban certain types of guns or ammunition, such as fully automatic assault weapons and the cheap handguns commonly known as “Saturday night specials.” Others studies examined laws that restrict certain people from buying guns, determine waiting periods for gun purchases, require gun registration, allow for concealed weapon and impose “zero tolerance” for firearms in schools. The task force also reviewed studies that looked at combinations of these laws.

The assault weapons ban, which they are no doubt referring to, does not cover fully automatic assault weapons. Some more spin:

For instance, Hahn and colleagues found that the five studies of the 1976 ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. and its effects on the city’s homicide rate were inconclusive.

Hahn says the task force found “no evidence for or against” the idea that handgun bans make it harder for residents of high-crime neighborhoods to protect themselves.

Actually, that’s a rather disingenuous way of stating there is no evidence for or against the idea that the gun ban affected homicides, which should have been what they were studying.

Junior is now cutting two front teeth. Strangely, she hasn’t seemed to notice and doesn’t seem fussy about it at all. We figure in a few days she can have her own rack of ribs.

Jim VandeHei of the WaPo notes that Bush’s second term calls for bigger and more powerful government. Republicans of the 90s were pushing for smaller government yet when in power they seem to abandon that principle. At least the Rs in the House are concerned.

I bet ol’ Newt is pissed.

For those of you out there wondering where I’ve been lately…

Does anyone out there have the personal experience of having gravel in their eyes? I’d like to compare notes, you see.

I left for laser eye surgery about two weeks ago, and only just got back. The specific surgery I received was PRK, which I can’t say from personal experience as being more painful, but it sure seemed that way when I’m sitting in a darkened optometry office waiting to see the doctor with all the other people who got the same kind of surgery. And, of course, all the people who got LASIK are all parading around all happy about how good their eyes are now. But the PRKers are all groaning in pain, a most incredibly uncomfortable experience and I’d certainly hate to repeat it, at the same time though, I am quite happy to have gone ahead with the surgery.

Those of you out there with decent eyesight probably don’t understand exactly why those with glasses will put up with pain just to have what you were given from birth. I wore corrective lenses for over eighteen years, between itchy contacts and scratched up glasses, I can honestly say that I got very tired of it all. Without those lenses, I couldn’t count the fingers on my outstretched hand…

And if you’re curious about the surgery itself, well let’s get the down and gritty. Imagine first, someone taking a miniture powered buffing machine and using it to take the protective coating off your eye, pointing a laser at you while you watch the smoke drift up off your own eye, then experiencing three days of incredible pain that feels vaguely like gravel in your eyes. And this is not to mention the headaches or light sensitivity, which is also quite an interesting experience, I might add.

So, people asked me when I got back how the surgery went. Eh, not bad. It had it’s moments.

Next week, I’ll be going through the New Mexico concealed carry course, so I’ll be sure to leave an update on that.

A bunch of dog items in my to blog folder that do not warrant their own individual posts, but here goes.

Officers subdue a pit bull with a taser.

Doggie genocide in Arkansas: Unaware that there is no breed called a pit bull, Hot Springs officials voted to prevent adoption of pit bulls and pit bull mixes from the local animal shelter. The press reports that the official name of the breed is American Stafsordshire (sic) Terrier. They are wrong.

911 Operator has bias against pit bulls (via Tom):

Dispatcher: “What kind of dog attacked him, Samantha?”

Dispatcher, repeating: “What kind of dog attacked him, Samantha?”

Samantha to her husband: “What kind of dog is JD?”

Husband: “He’s a pit bull.”

Samantha to operator: “He’s a pit.”

Dispatcher: “Stupid people.”

If you call in such an emergency, why does the operator need to know the breed of dog anyway?

WATE reports that Timothy David Sawyer, who was accused of shutting a bathroom door on the neck of a Jack Russell terrier, then pouring liquid makeup down the puppy’s throat until it suffocated, will be the first person in the state to serve prison time for felony animal abuse. He was sentenced to three years.

The KNS has an entire section dedicated to the alleged torture of a suspect in the war on drugs. Too much to excerpt go read the whole thing for a frightening look into what transpired. A bit of good news in that five officers were fired and are expected to plead guilty to civil rights violations.

Jeff has the latest look at gun bias in the media. It’s almost a Black History Month edition. And it’s on Tuesday.

Token Librul, of Nashville Files comment fame, has started a blog called Not In My Bible.

West Hollywood’s mayor plans to introduce legislation that the AP calls cosmetic surgery — for pets. What does the ban really entail?

West Hollywood’s mayor plans to introduce a motion Monday that would prohibit ear cropping, tail docking, debarking, defanging and other surgical procedures performed on animals for “noncurative” reasons.

I don’t think those items are necessarily cosmetic. Yes, tail and ear cropping can be but you can blame those problems on breed registries. Debarking and defanging sound cruel to me. I don’t have any of these procedures performed on my dogs and never will. In my case, they are unnecessary. However, contrary to this notion that it’s cosmetic, some procedures do serve a purpose. Some hunting dogs have ears and tails cropped to avoid getting tangled in brush and thickets. And some of these procedures have their origin in dog fighting. Pit Bull ears and tails were cropped so that fighting dogs had nothing to grab a hold of. Dog fighting is now illegal and folks continued this tradition for appearance. Some Pit and Molosser owners who engage in wild boar hunting still crop ears and tails so the wild hogs can’t grab hold of the dog and to avoid injury from brush and such.

The state of California tried this a while back but it did not happen.

I was reading John Derbyshire’s latest NRO article where he argues against a continuing US military presence in Iraq. He starts out the article with a quote from H.L. Mencken, which hardly ever fails to tickle me. This one is no exception:

We suffer most not when the White House is a peaceful dormitory, but when it is a jitney Mars Hill, with a tin-pot Paul bawling from the roof.

Now THAT’S funny. But it got me to thinking: who is our modern-day Mencken? P. J. O’Rourke? He’s funny enough, but not quite bitter enough. Your thoughts?

Started writing this post earlier. I had it set to publish tomorrow but in this blog game you’ve got to be quick. People started talking about it before me and now it is basically a Seegars round up:

Matt notes that the DC Circuit Court opinion on Seegars v. Ashcroft did not go well. Here’s a link to the opinion.

Eugene Volokh notes:

D.C. Circuit Ducks Second Amendment Issue in the challenge to the D.C. gun ban, holding that citizens can’t challenge the ban unless they’re being prosecuted for violating it, or at least have shown some serious threat of imminent prosecution.

So, I would have to actually break the law to challenge it? That seems a bit odd to me as the gun control system is set up to prevent things. For example, say I wanted to challenge the 1986 Hughes Amendment which prohibits the transfer of new machine guns to citizens (pre-1986 machine guns are still A-OK). Short of building my own, I can’t violate the law to challenge it. I can’t fill out a Form 4, pay my NFA tax, send it to the ATF, and get a manufacturer to ship me a new machine gun. The reason is because the ATF would not approve my Form 4. Ever.

The other thing is challenge of a law is quite risky. Say I challenge the machine gun law by building one and walking over to my ATF office to turn myself in. I’ll be arrested. Post bail and begin my challenge. If I lose my challenge, I’m looking at 10 years in club fed and thousands of dollars in fines. This is in addition to the lawyers fees. So, I am in a system where I can’t challenge a gun law without violating it and I don’t want to run the risk because said risk is way too high.

Volokh also notes that neither the majority nor the dissent express a view on the Second Amendment.

Matt of Triggerfinger, in addition to pointing out that the judges are splitting legal hairs and don’t want to address the second amendment issue, notes:

This decision is a mixed blessing for gun owners. It does not support a 2nd Amendment right, but it also does not deny one, and it explicitly reverses the lower court’s decision for the one plaintiff in Seegars who could claim standing. As such, the lower court’s decision on the merits of the 2nd Amendment (a very unfavorable decision) is expunged, and we’re back to asking how, exactly, a challenge to the law can be brought. Most gun owners aren’t willing to deliberately put themselves at risk of a felony conviction to challenge this law; and that appears to be exactly what the Appellate Court here is saying we need to do.

Clayton Cramer notes how to challenge the law:

Someone–and preferably, someone squeaky clean–has to violate the law without violating any other law. You can’t lawfully buy a pistol in DC, and a DC resident can’t lawfully purchase a pistol outside of DC. A DC resident who already owns a pistol (as one of the plaintiffs does) needs to bring the pistol into the District, or someone who lives outside DC with a pistol needs to move into the District.

Or, as Countertop says: . . . this is pure and utter bullshit . . .

I personally think that’s an insult to bullshit.

Update: Reader Robert emails:

Who is the perfect perp for the DC gun case?

He has recently, repeatedly, and publicly displayed an unregistered handgun IN Washington, DC. There are many witnesses, all public officials. Not only THAT but the provenance of the firearm in question makes it extremely probable that it was NOT imported through proper channels. He’s a white male with only one possible old DWI on his record. He’s rich, a sharp dresser, presents himself well in public, and is defended by the heaviest lawyers available in America.

He’s George W. Bush and he’s got Saddam’s Browning Highpower 9 mm in his office!

Heh.